UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
The person charging this material is responsible for its
renewal or return to the library on or before the due date.
The minimum fee for a lost item is $125.00, $300.00 for
bound journals.
Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons
for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from
the University. Please note: self-stick notes may result in
torn pages and lift some inks.
Renew via the Telephone Center at 217-333-8400,
846-262-1510 (toll-free) orcirclib@uiuc.edu.
Renew online by choosing the My Account option at:
http://www.library.uiuc.edu/catalog/
[COMMITTEE PRINT]
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY
REVIEW COMMISSION
FINAL REPORT APPENDIXES AND INDEX
SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS
MAY 17, 1977
VOLUME TWO OF TWO VOLUMES
^^
Printed for the Use of the
American Indian Policy Review Commission
'-^
[COMMITTEE PRINT]
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY
REVIEW COMMISSION
FINAL REPOKT APPENDIXES AND INDEX
SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS
MAY 17, 1977
VOLUME TWO OF TWO VOLUMES
Printed for the Use of the
American Indian Policy Review Commission
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1977
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, B.C. 20402
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Hank Adams, Assinlbolne-Sloux
Wilbur Atcltty, Navajo
Earl Barlow, Blackfeet
Robert Bojorcas, Klamath
Sherwin Broadhead
Matthew Calac, Rincon
John Echohawk, Pawnee
Alfred Elgin, California Pomo
Jerry Flute, Sisseton-Wahpeton
Raymond Goettlng, Caddo
George Hawkins, Southern Cheyenne
Jo Jo Hunt, Lumbee
Yvonne Knight, Ponca
Peter MacDonald, Navajo
Phillip Martin, Mississippi Choctaw
Lillie McGarvey, Aleut
Lorraine Mlslaszek, Colvllle
Edward Mouss, Creek-Cherokee
Douglas Nash, Nez Perce
Alan Parker, Chlppewa-Cree
Browning, Pipestem, Otoe-Missourl-Osage
Luana Reyes, Colville
Dr. Everett Rhoades, Kiowa
William Roy Rhodes, Pima
Helen Schelrbeck, Lumbee
Kenneth Smith, Wasco
Reuben Snake, Winnebago
John Stevens, Passamaquoddy
Peter Taylor
Gail Thorpe, Cherokee-Creek
Mel Tonasket, Colville
TASK FORCE SPECIALISTS
Paul Alexander
James Bluestone, Hldatsa
Allan Cayous, Apache-CalvlUa
Michael Cox, Creek
Bruce Davies, Oglala Sioux
Maria Facchina
Karl Funke, Keweenaw Bay, Chippewa
Amos Hopkins, Kiowa
Stephen LaBoueff, Blackfeet
Paul Llttlechlef , Kiowa-Comanche
Roberta Mlnnls, Colville
Kathy McKee, Missouri Cherokee
Lorraine Ruffing
Rudy Ryser, Cowlitz
Sheri Scott
George Tomer, Penobscot-Mallseet
Donald Wharton
Patricia Zell, Navajo- Arapaho
CLERICAL AND SECRETARIAL
Elva Arquero, Cochiti Pueblo
Linda Bethea
Gail Bradford
Alice Clark
Marilyn Dufrane, Mohawk
Lisa Elgin, California Pomo
Doris Gadson
Cynthia Gellner
Maxine Hill, Onondaga
Janet Hopkins
Darcy Johnson
Dlanne Johnson
Cheryl Lewis
Ernestine Lewis
Gail McDonald, Mohawk
Barbara Morgan
Barbara W. Nicholson, Colville
Dawn Oakes, Mohawk
Deborah Pope
Pat Porter
Colleen Ralney
Carole Roop
Emmellne Sblpman
Cynthia Suver
Reglna Tsosle, Navajo
Barbara Thomas
Toni Villagecenter, Sioux
Cheryl Wheeler
Annette Young, Navajo
(IV)
CONTENTS
Appendixes P»w
A. How the Commission did its work? 1
B. Bibliography of materials used by the Commission 37
C. Format for proposed annual report on Indian afifairs 159
D. Federal programs serving Indians 171
E. Comments received on the tentative final draft report 193
Index
Index 895
(V)
APPENPIX A
HOW THE COMMISSION DID ITS WORK
(1)
HOW THE COMMISSION DID ITS WORK
I. INTRODUCTION AND MISSION SUMMARY
Throughout the history of Federal/Indian relations, there has never
been a comprehensive or consistent approach by the Congress and the
Executive that dealt effectively with Indian problems and, at the same
time, sufficiently fulfilled Indian needs. Inconsistent Indian policy has
led directly to a situation of deep despair and frustration among
Indian people documented by countless alarming statistics reflecting
deplorable living conditions of Indian people. This frustration has
been physically manifested in events such as the occupation of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs headquartere and the modern siege at
Wounded Knee in 1973.
On July 16, 1973, Senator James Abourezk (Democrat-South
Dakota) introduced Resolution 133 to establish the first Indian staffed
congressional Commission to review American Indian policy. Resolu-
tion 133 was referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
and after brief hearings on July 19 and 20, 1973, and on December 5,
1973, it was considered and passed by the Senate. •
May 13, 1974, Congressman Lloyd Meeds (Democrat- Washington)
introduced an identical resolution, House Joint Resolution 881, in the
House of Representatives. Hearings on the resolution were held before
the House Subcommil tee on Indian Affairs, and was passed on Novem-
ber 19, 1974, along with an amendment providing for the creation of
investigating task forces responsible to the Commission. On December
16, the Senate concurred on the House amendment and on January 2,
1975, the resolution became Public Law 93-580, creating the American
Indian Policy Review Commission. Additional amendments were
passed entitling the Commission to franking privileges and to accept
volunteer services from both the private and public sectors.
The American Indian Policy Review Commission, was mandated to:
Conduct a comprehensive review of the historical and legal developments
underlying the Indian's unique relationship with the Federal Government in
order to determine the nature and scope of necessary revisions in the formulation
of policies and programs for the benefit of Indians.
This study was to be conducted by an 11-member Commission com-
posed of three Senators, three Representatives, and five Indian mem-
bers selected by the congressional representatives.
The actual investigations were conducted by 11 task forces working
within legislative, defined subject areas. Two task forces were added
later by Commission action. The task forces were each composed of
three members selected from among the leading authorities in their
respective fields of expertise in Indian affairs.
In the development of their reports, task forces utilized research,
reports, studies, questionnaires, hearings, and site visits. This process
involved a continued emphasis on direct consultation. The recom-
mendation of each task force was structured to comply with the man-
dates of the legislation.
(3)
Overall, the task force reports have provided : A study and analysis
of the legal relationship of Indians to the Federal Government; a
comprehensive review of existing Federal programs for Indians and
projections of future needs; an examination of Federal criteria for
granting recognition; and a study of tribal governments, including
recommendations for strengthening governments at both the tribal
and national levels. Other substantive conclusions were arrived at in
the course of their investigation. Each final investigative task force
report was due to the Commission within 1 year of the task force's
day of appointment. The 11 final task force reports were completed by
September 1976.
The development of the final report which has provided the basis
for legislative proposals and administrative practices designed to meet
the needs of Indian people, has also involved the creation of supple-
mental reports which reinforce the conclusions reached in the final
report. In addition to the 11 task forces reports, the Commission has
compiled sjjecial reports on pressing issues in Indian affairs written
by authorities in these areas : Individual tribal reports discussing con-
cerns analogous to task force investigations as independently perceived
by tribes and organizations ; a comprehensive bibliography and library
on Indian Affairs; a detailed table of all Federal Indian programs;
and a complete record of individual complaints, deputations, testi-
monies, case studies, and recommendations related to the areas of
study submitted by all sectors of the Indian community. Finally, the
Commission designed and maintained a unique accounting system
which has insured internal accountability through the establishment
of a monthly review of costs and expenditures. This system will facili-
tate the development of cost benefit analysis.
The final Commission report, a product of Indian participation, rep-
resenting "a compendium of information on a scale heretofore un-
available to the Federal Government," was submitted to Congress on
May 17, 1977, representing the most comprehensive review of Indian
policies and programs ever conducted.
II. ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION
On January 2, 1975, Public Law 93-580 which provided for the
establishment of the American Indian Policy Eeview Commission,
was signed into law. It was a joint congressional commission com-
posed of three Senators, three Members of the House of Representa-
tives, and five Indian leaders. On January 27, 1975, the President Pro
Tempore of the Senate appointed Senators Lee Metcalf, James Abou-
rezk, and Mark Hatfield to the Commission. On February 13, 1975,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives appointed Congressmen
Lloyd Meeds, Sidney Yates, and Sam Steiger as members of the
Commission.
Brief Profiles of the Congressional Commission Members
senators
James Abourezk (Democrat, South Dakota) was bom and raised
on the Rosebud Indian Reservation. In 1970 he became the first Dem-
ocrat since the 1930's to win the Second Congressional District seat
in South Dakota. In 1972 he was elected to the Senate, where as chair-
man of the Indian Affairs Subcommittee of the foimer Interior Com-
mittee, he sponsored and obtained the passage of a large quantity of
Indian legislation, including Public Law 93-580, which created the
American Indian Policy Review Commission. He is the chairman of
the recently established Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs.
He is also chairman of the Administrative Practice and Procedure
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee ; chairman of the Parks and
Recreation Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources; and a
member of the Budget Committee.
Lee Metcalf (Democrat, Montana) was elected U.S. Representative
from Montana's First Congressional District in 1952. After four terms
'in the House of Representatives, he ran for the Senate in 1960, when
he served until his death. He was a member of the Indian Affairs Sub-
committee on Public Lands and Resources of the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources and chairman of the Joint Committee on Con-
gressional Operations. Additionally, he chaired the Subcommittee on
Reports, Accounting, and Management of the Governmental Affairs
Committee. He died on January 12, 1978.
Mark Hatfield (Republican, Oregon) served as Governor of
Oregon for two terms before being elected to the Senate in 1966. He
has been instrumental in the passage of the Umatilla judgment fund
legislation, the McQuinn Strip Act, the Klamath Forest Act and the
Comprehensive Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which he oo-
sponsored. Senator Hatfield serves on the Select Committee on Indian
Affairs and is ranking minority member of the Public Works Sub-
committee of the Appropriations Committee. He is also ranking minor-
ity member of the Public Works Subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee. He is also ranking minority member of the Energy Re-
search and Development Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, ranking minority member of the Rules and
Administration Committee and is a member of the Joint Committee
on Printing.
REPRESENTATIVES
Lloyd Meeds (Democrat, 2d District of Washington) has served in
the House of Representatives since 1964. When he was chairman of
the House Indian Affairs Subcommittee of the Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee, he was closely involved in the passage of the Alaska
Native Land Claims Settlement Act, The Indian Education Act of
1972, and the Menominee Restoration Act — for his work on the latter
legislation he received the 1974 National Congress of American Indians
Congressional award. Congressman Meeds is also a member of the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Territorial and In-
sular Affairs, and chairman of Water and Power Resources, all of the
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.
Sam Steiger (Republican, 3d District of Arizona) was elected to
the 90th Congress in 1966 and was reelected to the 91st, 92d, 93d, and
94th Congresses. A member of the Interior and Insular Affairs Com-
mittee, he played a key role in resolving the Hopi-Navajo land dispute.
Mr. Steiger also serv-ed as the ranking minority member on both the
Government Information and Individual Righ1:s Subcommittee of the
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and the Public Lands Sub-
committee of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and as a
member of the Commission on the Review of the National Policy
Toward Gambling. He was unsuccessful in a bid for election to the
U.S. Senate in the 95th Congress. His vacancy on the Commission was
subsequently filled by the appointment of Congressman Don Young.
Don Young (Republican, representative-at-large of Alaska) was
elected to the 93d Congress, in a special election March 6, 1973, to fill
the vacancy created by the death of Congressman Nick Begich ; and
was reelected to each succeeding Congress. He has served as the ranking
minority member of the Indian Affairs Subcommittee of the Interior
and Insular Affairs Committee and member of the Ad Hoc Select
Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf, and the Merchant Marine
and Fisheries Committee.
Sidney R. Yates (Democrat, 9th District of Illinois) was elected
to Congress in 1948 and has served in the House of Representatives
since that time, except for a 2-year period when he served as U.S.
Representative to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. Con-
gressman Yates is chairman of the Interior Subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee and a member of the Transportation and
Legislative Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
On March 5, 1975, the congressional members met for their orga-
nizational meeting. At that meeting. Senator Abourezk was elected
as chairman of the Commission and Congressman Lloyd Meeds was
elected as vice-chairman. Both served as chairman of the Indian Affairs
Subcommittees of their respective Chambers of Congress. The Com-
mission then adopted a set of rules under which it would conduct its
meetings. These rules were based on existing Senate rules, which were
conformed to the requirements of Public Law 93-580.
Following a brief discussion of office facilities and equipment, the
Commission moved for the selection of the Indian Commissioners pur-
suant to section 1(c) of the act. After a review of numerous recom-
mendations received from Indian organizations, tribes, and legislators,
the congressional Commissioners chose, by a majority vote, the Indian
members for the categories mandated in the act. From federally
recognized tribes, the members selected were : John Borbridge, Tlingit,
Alaska; Ada Deer, Menominee, Wisconsin; and Jake Whitecrow,
Quapaw-Seneca, Oklahoma. From nonfederally recognized tribes;
Adolph Dial, Lumbee, North Carolina. Urban Indians were repre-
sented by Louis Bruce, Mohawk Sioux, New York.
Pursuant to section 6(a) of the act, the Commissioners then ap-
pointed Ernest L. Stevens, Oneida; as the staff director and Kirke
Kickingbird, Kiowa as the general counsel. Staff consultants were
also appointed to aid in the development of investigative programs,
procedures, budgets, and organizational plans.
Brief Profiles of Indian Commission Members
federally recognized tribes
Ada Deer served as chairperson of the Menominee Restoration Com-
mittee. Mrs. Deer, a trained social worker, withdrew from law school
to lead the fight against termination and is credited as the single most
important force behind the success of the Menominee Restoration Act,
which returned the tribe to Federal trust status. Under her leadership
the Menominee Restoration Committee developed and submitted plans
to Congress for the return of the tribal assets to Federal protection
and, also, a new modern constitution was written and adopted by the
tribe.
Jake Whitecrow, a former Quai)aw tribal chairman who served
on that tribe's business committee since 1953, is the director of the
Inter-tribal Council of Northeastern Oklahoma, which represents the
Eastern Shawnee, Seneca-Cayuga, Wyandot, Quapaw, Ottawa, Peoria,
Miami, and Modoc. The Ottawa and Peoria Tribes in Oklahoma were
terminated in 1956. He has served on the Muskogee Area Indian
Health Advisory Board. Mr. Whitecrow is a member of the Quapaw
and Seneca-Cayuga Tribes, which are both federally recognized.
John Borbridge is president of Sealaska Corp., one of the 12
regional Native corporations established under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act for which he lobbied extensively while serving
as president of the Tlingit-Haida Central Council. Mr. Borbridge is a
member of the Executive Committee of the Rural Affairs Commission
of Alaska and is a member of the Financial Advisory Board of the
American Indian National Bank.
URBAN INDIANS
Louis R. Bruce, Mohawk and Oglala Sioux, received his honomry
doctorates from Clarkson University and Navajo College, and served
as BIA Commissioner from 1969-72. Over the years, Mr. Bruce has
served on President Roosevelt's and President Eisenhower's Advisory
Indian Committee and was chairman of President Truman's Advisory
Indian Committee. Mr. Bruce has also been active in the formation or
early development of the National Congress of American Indians, the
National Tribal Chairman's Association, and the American Indian
National Bank. Following his tenure as BIA Commissioner, he served
as senior fellow for the Antioch School of Law and aided in the
formation of the Coalition of Eastern Native Americans, and is pres-
ently the president of Native American Consultants, Inc., and con-
sultant to the Department of Housing and Urban Development on
their Indian programs.
nonfederally recognized tribes
Adolph Dial, Lumbee, is chairman of the American Indian studies
Department of Pembroke State University, a member of the Ameri-
can Indian Advisory Council of HEW's Office of Civil Rights and a
member of the Board of Directors of the American Indian Historical
Society. In 1972, he received a grant to research the history of the
North Carolina Lumbees; which resulted in the recently published
"The Only Land I Know : A History of the Lumbee Indians,"
coauthored by Mr. Dial.
FIRST business MEETING
The 11 Commissioners were sworn in by Supreme Court Justice
Byron White at the commencement of the first business meeting of the
8
Commission on May 2, 1975. The staff presented for discussion and
approved the operations plans, and tentative schedule and budget for
the following 2 years. A subcommittee, cliaired by Lloyd Meeds with
Louis Bruce and Adolph Dial as members, was appointed by the
chairman to screen applicants for nominations to be members of the
task forces and to study the need to expand the number of task force
members and the manner in which those taslc force members would
conduct their investigations. The subcommittee proposed, for con-
sideration, the creation of two additional task forces at the Commis-
sion meeting held on June 13, the professional staff assistant was
appointed — Max Richtman — and one half of the task force members
were voted on and appointed. The Commission also created two addi-
tional task forces pursuant to recommendations of the subcommittee
which was set up to review the need for additional task forces. These
two additional task forces were: No. 10 — Terminated and Nonfed-
erally Recognized Indians, which was separated from the Rural and
Non-Reservation Indians Task Force. At the Commission meeting on
July 11, the remaining task force members were appointed and a re-
view of the plan of operations, tentative schedule and budget of the
Commission was conducted. In the following 22 months, the Com-
mission hold a series of nine meetings to review, markup, and finally
vote on the final Commission report.
III. THE INVESTIGATING TASK FORCES
At the May 2, 1975 Commission meeting, the Commission voted to
create a Subcommitteee on Task Forces composed of Vice-Chairman
Lloyd Meeds and Commissioners, Adolph Dial and Louis Bruce. The
Subcommittee on Task Forces met twice between May 2, and the next
Commission meeting on June 13, to review applications for task force
positions land letters of recommendations concerning the applications.
A list of nominees was presented to the full Commission by the sub-
committee on June 13. Additional nominees were brought to the atten-
tion of the Commission by individual Commissioners. Each task force
was elected by the Commission separately and all nominees were dis-
cussed prior to voting. At the completion of this meeting, one-half of
the task force members had been elected. The remaining task force
members were elected at the Commission's next meeting on July 11.
The act required each task force to be composed of at least two
Indian members. Subsequently the AIPRC elected 31 Indians to the
available 33 task force positions. The members represented a cross sec-
tion from all areas of Indian country. The task force membei-s not
being full-time employees were authorized to hire full-time specialists
well versed in the type of work to be performed.
Between July 20 and August 10, the staff director, the general coun-
sel, and the staff assistant divided the task forces into groups of three
and organized briefing sessions. These briefings took place in Denver,
Chicago, and Washington, D.C. and the determination as to location
was based on the cost for bringing the various task force members to-
gether since they resided in diverse parts of the country. General
plans and orientation materials were prepared and presented to the
task forces to provide a systematic approach for analyzing problems
and procedures, which the staff anticipated the Commission would
9
want to consider. The briefing session consisted of two major areas of
discussion, a scope of work, and a plan of operations. The scope of
work format provided a specific description of the work to be accom-
plished. A sample scope of work and plan of operations were pre-
sented to the task force members at each of the sessions. After lengthy
discussion, these models were refined and finalized, and the task forces
were instructed to refer to these models in developing their activities
for the following year. Furthermore, a format was developed which
standardized the quarterly task force reporting process required by
Public Law 93-580.
Task Force Plan of Operations
The initial work of the investigative task forces involved intense
planning and work coordination. The task force was composed of a
chairman and two task force members who, together with the task force
specialists, formulated the basic plans of the task force. The scope of
work and the plan of operations were the two basic documents which
described the objectives, tasks, and weighted efforts to be addressed by
the task force group.
The scope of work was described in the Commission manual of oper-
ations under "Proposed Scope of Work Outline" and examples were
provided to indicate the basic requirements which constitute a scope of
work. This material was to be thoroughly reviewed prior to formulat-
ing the final draft for the Commission.
The plan of operations was discussed in the orientation package and
the document provided information and guidelines for the plan of
operations. A definition of the plan of operations in the context of the
Commission's work was as follows :
A statement by the investigative task force group proposing specific studies and
methods of accomplishment identified by priority from the Scope of Work.
Each task force statement was to be carefully evaluated to insure
maximum coordination and support for each task force group.
The schedule was amended in order to provide an overall acceptable
schedule of field activities. Close coordination was required to obtain
substance and continuity in the total effort of the Commission. There
were other activities which required changes as the work progressed,
and those changes were submitted for further coordination. Basically,
the plan of operations submittal was divided into five separate catego-
ries as follows: Narrative; schedule; process (benchmarks) ; budget;
and reporting system.
Each of the categories played an important role in the overall devel-
opment of the Commission's goals and objectives. The task force inves-
tigative groups had 1 year, by law, to complete their work. The Com-
mission compiled all reports to formulate substantive recommendations
and conclusions in a final Commission report prior to January 30, 1977.
This extended to IMay 17, in subsequent amendments to Public Law 93-
580. Therefore, great importance was placed upon the development of
the task force reports.
Since the American Indian Policy Review Commission's investiga-
tions were to be accomplished by a task force constituted body, it be-
came very important that the selection of the members of these task
forces be accomplished in a manner which would assure the AIPRC of
10
a working group which could accomplish hearings, research, and in-
vestigation in an efficient, accurate, and publicly credible manner to
Indians as well as to Congress and the American public.
In early stages of the planning and administrative implementation
of Public Law 93-580, it became readily apparent that it would have
been very valuable to have known the problems encountered by other
Commissions and investigating bodies. There was little record or evi-
dence about the organizational and functional problems encountered
by many of the previous congressional Commissions or the past efforts
of the investigating bodies of the executive branch, however, what has
come to be known as the Meriam report of 1928 provided some valuable
information and insight on the constitution of task forces and the
peculiar problems related to their selection and operation. Some of that
report's self-criticism became valuable.
The Meriam report critique was very useful in considering the disci-
plines needed in the selection of task force personnel and staff.
The background, disciplines, as well as the credibility of the prospec-
tive task force members had to be evaluated in advance in order to
attempt to predict technical and professional quality. The proper mix
would result in a report which would be acceptable to the Indian peo-
ple and Congress alike.
Paramount in the consideration of task force constitution was the
issue of what type of candidates should be considered. There seemed to
be at least two clear and distinct possibilities :
1. A majority of the members could be chosen purely on the basis of
academic, technical, and professional background. These candidates
could have been chosen on the basis of their professional and technical
experience and background. For instance, published authors in
anthropology, ethno-history, law, public administration, economics,
and sociology, who had established professional reputations in the
field of Indian affairs. These individuals might have been Indian or
non-Indian, The accent would have been entirely on professional and
technical excellence.
2. The members could have been chosen from tribal leaders or other
leadership and professional Indians who specialized in specific areas
in Indian Affairs, primarily in the policy development area. This
group would include elected leaders and professionals, mostly of In-
dian descent who were well-known people who had the confidence of
Indian tribes and their members.
In assessing the need for integrity and credibility in the final report,
the Commission's professional staff recommended to the Commission
that an effort be made by the Commission to incorporate both qualities,
however, it was recommended that Indian community credibility
should be the prime consideration. Subsequently, in May and June of
1975, the Commission approved a plan of operations which provided a
means to provide the constituent and technical representation that was
necessary.
The Commission believed that Indian representation and input was
absolutely necessary.
The members elected by the Commission follow :
11
Brief Profiles of the Task Force Members
TASK force 1 : trust responsibility and federal/indian relationship,
INCLUDING TREATY REVIEW
Chairman: Hank Ada/ms
Hank Adams is a member of the Fort Peck Tribes of Montana,
Assiniboine-Sioux. He brought to the Task Force on Trust Respon-
sibility a wide range of skills as a writer, lobbyist, tribal and economic
consultant, and paraprofessional legal assistant. He has worked vigor-
ously to prevent the termination of various tribes and has argued
treaty rights, Indian hunting, and fighting rights, State jurisdiction.
State taxation and civil rights cases, while making effective use of the
news media through a newspaper column and numerous published
articles.
Member: John Echohawk
John Echohawk is a Pawnee Indian from Oklahoma. He has been
elected by the Board of Directors to serve as director for the Native
American Rights Funds as of October 1977, having previously served
as director from 1973-75. Mr. Echohawk's tenure has earned him the
respect of many Indian members of the legal profession and gave
him a broad understanding of the legal issues confronting Native
Americans. He received his B.A. and his J.D. degrees from the Uni-
versity of New Mexico and is a member of the Colorado Bar Asso^a-
tion. Mr. Echohawk is married and has two children.
Member: Douglas Nash
Douglas Nash is a member of the Nez Perce Tribe. He had been
employed as an attorney for the Native American Rights Fund
(NARF) and later entered private practice specializing in Indian
law. He received his B.A. from the University of Idaho and J.D. in
1971 from the University of New Mexico School of Law. Mr. Nash is
married and has two children.
task force 2 : tribal government
Chairman: Wilbur Atcitty
Wilbur Atcitty is a Navajo. For 4 years he served as director of
the Office of Administration for the Navajo Tribe and then for 2
years as executive-administrator to the chairman. His position gave
him a first-hand opportunity to observe tribal government and its
interaction with the Federal Government. He has also worked with
the Office of Navajo Economic Opportunity to provide management
and budgeting requirements for reservation housing projects. Mr.
Atcitty was married and had three children but, unfortunately, he
was killed in an auto accident in May of 1976 and not replaced on the
task force.
93-440 O - 78
12
Member: Alan Parker
Alan Parker is a Chippewa- Cree, and formerly the attorney-direc-
tor for the Washington, D.C., Office of the American Indian Lawyer
Training Program and the American Indian Law Center at the Uni-
versity of New Mexico School of Law. He is presently chief counsel
for the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. He has worked
as an attorney in the Solicitor's Office at the Department of the In-
terior and for the Indian Civil Rights Task Force. He organized and
initiated the publication of ihelndian Law Reporter, a comprehensive
monthly report on developments in Indian law. Mr. Parker is mar-
ried and has two children.
Member: Jerry Flute
Jerry Fltjte has been the tribal chairman of the Sisseton-Wahpeton
Tribe since January 1975. For 4 years prior to that, he was the tribal
secretary. Mr. Flute is also chairman of the United Tribes Training
Center m Bismarck, N. Dak., and is a former secretary-treasurer of
that organization. He has also served on numerous Indian boards and
task forces and is a member of the National Congress of American
Indians and the National Tribal Chairman's Association. He has
attended the National Indian Training Center in Utah, taking a spe-
cialized course in tribal government development. Mr. Flute is mar-
ried and has three children.
TASK FORCE 3 : FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION AND STRUCTURE OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS
Member: Ray Goetting
Rat Goetting is a member of the Caddo Tribe and currently the
treasurer of the National Congress of American Indians. He brought
to the Task Force on Federal Administration and Structure of In-
dian Affairs 15 years of administrative experience with the Bureau
of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, and 16 years of experi-
ence as the owner of a business management consulting firm assisting
Indian tribes and organizations as well as local businesses in New
Mexico. In the Bureau of Reclamation, he served successively as a
regional procedures analyst, regional management analyst, and re-
gional administrative officer. As a business consultant, he aided ranch-
ers, small mining companies, manufacturers, and other business con-
cerns. As an NCAI officer, he has been extremely active in regard to
Federal-Indian programs and budget processes, and served as a con-
sultant to the staff of the Commission, prior to becoming a member
of the task force.
Member: Mel TonasJcet
Mel Tonasket: President of the National Congress of American
Indians, Chairman of the Colville Business Council, Colville Con-
federated Tribes. He has also served as chairman of the Reservation
Subcommittee of the Governor's Indian Advisory Council for the
State of Washington. Involved in the development of the surplus
lands at Fort Lawton in Seattle for the United Indians of All Tribes
13
Cultural Center. On the Indian Advisory Board for Gonzaga Uni-
versity and Eastern Washington State College, and the Water Com-
mission re : Indian Water Rights.
TASK FORCE 4 : FEDERAL, STATE, AND TRIBAL JURISDICTION
Chairman: Sherwin Broadhead
Sherwin Broadhead presently residing in Reardon, Wash., is
working with the Institute for the Development of Indian Law on
treaty rights involving four tribal groups and is serving as consultant
to various tribes. He is an attorney, having graduated from George
Washington University with a J.D. degree in 1961 and is a member
of the Idaho Bar Association. He fonnerly served as congressional
relations officer with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and special assist-
ant for Indian Affairs on the staff of Senator James Abourezk, chair-
man of the former Senate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs. He has
long been an active advocate on Indian tribal sovereignty.
Meiriber: Judge William Roy Rhodes
Judge William Roy Rhodes, the chief tribal judge of the Gila
River Indian Community in Arizona, is a Pima Indian, married and
the father of five children and three foster children. Judge Rhodes is
president of the American Indian Lawyer Training Program,, a
member of the National Indian Court Judges Association, and pres-
ently a member of the Arizona Governor's Task Force on Police/
Community Relations. Prior to being elected chief tribal judge at
Gil" River, he was involved in law enforcement activities m Mari-
copa County in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and in the tribal police.
Memher: Matthew L. Calac
Matt Calac is from the Rincon Band of Mission Indians. He has
been on the Business Council of the Rincon Band and has also been
area vice president of the National Congress of American Indians.
He has served as the executive director for Americans for Indian
Future and Tradition, which performs legal, social, and health serv-
ices, as well as job placement and training programs. He chairs the
ad hoc Committee on Public Law 83-280 for 29 southern California
reservations and directs all of the Inter-Tribal Council of Califor-
nia's efforts relating to Public Law 83-280. He has also been active in
other important tribal and California Indian organizations. Mr. Calac
is married and has four children.
TASK force 5 : INDIAN EDUCATION
Chairwomxin : Helen Schierbeck
Helen Schierbeck is a member of the Lumbee Tribe, and is cur-
rently involved in several projects relating to Indian education. She
is serving as director of the Special Project on the History and Financ-
ing of Indian Education for the John Hay Whitney Foundation and
as service coordinator for three major Indian education organizations.
14
From 1966 to 1973, she was closely associated with Federal programs
and efforts to improve educational opportunities for Indians. Ms.
Schierbeck has published several articles about Indian education and
has received numerous awards. She is a doctoral candidate at Vir-
ginia Polytechnic Institute.
Member: Earl Barlow
Earl Barlow is a member of the Blackfeet Tribe. He received his
B.A. degree from Western Montana College in 1947. He also holds a
master's degree in education from the University of Montana. Mr.
Barlow has served as superintendent of schools in both Hot Springs
and Stevensville, Mont. In 1970, he became directly responsible for
all JOM programs in Montana. Mr. Barlow is presently superin-
tendent of schools on the Blackfeet Reservation.
Member: Lorraine Misiaszeh
Lorraine Misiaszek, an enrolled member of the Colville Confed-
erated Tribes, served as an elected tribal council member for 4 years,
active membership on the Board of Directors of Advocates for Indian
Education Northwest Tribes, served as an advisory committee mem-
ber for Spokane's Education TV Services, a trustee for Fort Wrig'ht
College of the Holy Names, and a member of the National Indian
Education Association. She holds a B.A. and a masters degree from
Gonzaga University, Spokane, Wash. Areas of employment have
been mainly in the education field ; most recently as acting director of
the Advocates for Indian Education Northwest Tribes whose main
goal is the development of an educational center which will serve the
four northwest States in the areas of technical assistance, materials
information center, and training assistance for education personnel
ultimately improving educational opportunities for Indian youths.
task force 6 : Indian health
Chairman: Dr. Everett Rhoades
Dr. Everett Rhoades is a Kiowa. He has had extensive experience
both in practice and in the teaching of medicine. He is presently the
chief of the infectious disease section of the Univei-sity of Oklahoma
Medical Center. He is a member of more than a dozen societies and
organizations, including the American College of Physicians, the
Association of American Indian Physicians (of which he was presi-
dent and founder in 1974) , and the National Congress of American
Indians. Dr. Rhoades has published some 40 articles in professional
journals. He is married and has five children.
Memiber: Luana L. Reyes
LuANA Reyes is from the Colville Reservation in Washington. Now
executive director of the Seattle Indian Health Board, Ms. Reyes has
been active in local and national Indian health committees for the last
15 years. She has also served as the Commissioner of the Seattle Indian
Services Commission, which houses several Indian programs and has
15
been active in other community affairs. As a child, she attended schools
on or near the Colville Reservation ; she has also studied education
and business at the University of Puget Sound and the University of
Washington. She has one child.
Meinher: Lillian McGarvey
Lillian McGarvey is an Aleut from Alaska. She is currently di-
rector of health programs for the Aleut League, a nonprofit organiza-
tion for the Aleut region. As chairperson of the Native Service Unit
Board of the Alaska Native Health Board, she is Alaska's representa-
tive on the National Indian Health Board. She also serves on the
Board of Directors of the Alaska Chapter of the American Public
Health Association and is helping the Comprehensive Health Ad-
visory Comicil of Alaska to draw up a State health plan. In addi-
tion, Ms. McGarvey is the Secretary-Treasurer of the Aleut Corpo-
ration, one of the 12 regional corporations set up under the Alaska
Native Claims Act. She has two daughters and five grandchildren.
TASK FORCE 7 : RESERVATION AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION
Chairman: Peter MacDonald
Peter MacDonald has been chairman of the Navajo Tribal Council
for 5 years. After graduating from the University of Oklahoma with
a degree in engineering, he worked with the Hughes Aircraft Co., as
an engineer and a member of the technical staff. He returned to work
for his tribe first as director of management, methods and procedures,
then as director of the Office of Navajo Economic Opportunity.
Mr. MacDonald has also been very active in national Indian affairs
and State affairs. He is married and has five children.
Member: Ken Smith
Ken Smith is a member of the Wasco Tribe from the Warm
Springs Reservation. Having graduated from the University of
Oregon in 1959 with a major in finance and accounting, he has worked
for the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs for 16 years, originally
as an accountant and now as general manager for the reservation. In
addition to having served 3 years on his tribal council, he has been
active in other civic groups and Indian organizations. He is married
and has two chldren.
Member: Phillip Martin
Phillip Martin is an enrolled member of the Mississippi Band of
Choctaw Indians. A member of the tribal council since 1957, he has
twice been tribal chairman, first from 1959 to 1965 and again from
1971 to 1975. He has not limited his energies to the tribal council, but
has also been chairman of the board of the Choctaw Housing Authority
and executive director of the Choctaw Community Action Program.
Mr. Martin has been president of the Board of Regents of Haskell
Indian Junior College since 1970 and has also been active in other
Indian organizations, having served as president of the Board of
u
United Southeastern Tribes for two terms and also a member of the
National Tribal Chairman's Association and the National Congress of
American Indians. Mr. Martin is married and has two children.
TASK FORCE 8 : URBAN AND RURAL NON -RESERVATION INDIANS
Chairman: Alfred Elgin
The Reverend Alfred Elgin is a Pomo Indian from California.
Until recently, the project director for the Indian Centers Develop-
ment Services, which works with numerous urban Indian organiza-
tions, he is now acting executive director for the American Indian
Community House in New York City. He has also worked as executive
director for the Intertribal Friendship House in Oakland and as a
counselor for the Oakland American Indian Association. He has been
a leader in several California Indian organizations, such as the Inter-
tribal Council of California and the California Indian Education
Association and has served as the Board Chairman for the United
Scholarship Service and as a board member for the Native American
Legal Defense and Education Fund. Mr. Elgin has a B.A. in exe-
getical theology from Bethany Bible College. He is married and has
six children.
Memher: Gail Thorpe
Gail Thorpe is a member of the Sac and Fox Tribe. The eldest
daughter of the famous athlete, Jim Thorpe, she was born in Okla-
homa, attended Haskell Indian Junior College and Chilocco Indian
School and later graduated from business school in Chicago. She is
currently employed as office manager of the regional office of the Girl
Scouts in Chicago. Active for many years in Indian affairs, she is now
president of the Indian Council Fire and secretary of Descendants of
Jim Thorpe, Inc. Ms. Thorpe has served as an Illinois delegate to the
Governor's Indian Interstate Council and is the president of Tipi, Inc.,
an American Indian speaker's bureau.
Member: Edward F. Mouss
Edward F. Mouss is a Creek-Cherokee from Oklahoma. Now execu-
tive director for the Creek Nation, he has also worked as the manager
of New Enterprise Development for Oklahomans for Indian Oppor-
tunity and as a consultant and staff researcher at the University of
Oklahoma. He received a B.A. from Oklahoma State University in
science management in 1965 and then went on to get a masters of busi-
ness administration from the University of Tulsa in 1970 and a master
of regional and urban planning in 1973 from the University of Okla-
homa. Mr. Mouss is married and has two children.
TASK FORCE 9 : INDIAN LAW REVISION, CONSOLIDATION AND CODIFICATION
Chairman: Peter S. Taylor
Peter S. Tatlor is a resident of Arlington, Va., was codirector of
the Indian Civil Rights Task Force in the Office of the Solicitor, De-
partment of the Interior. For the past 4 years, he has worked exten-
17
sively on the revision and consolidation of Indian law. Mr. Taylor is
a 1963 graduate of the George Washington University School of Law
and is a member of the Virginia and District of Columbia Bar Asso-
ciations. Prior to his service on the Indian Civil Eights Task Force,
he practiced law in the District of Columbia for 7 years.
Memher: Yvonne Knight
Yvonne Knight is a member of the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, has
been a staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund since 1971.
She is currently drafting a tribal constitution and bylaws for the
Menominee Tribe and her work has been praised as a model for the
development of tribal constitutions. She has been the recipient of nu-
merous grants and scholarships and is a member of six distinguished
professional organizations. Ms. Knight received her J.D. from the
University of New Mexico Law School in 1971 and is a member of the
Colorado Bar Association.
Memher: Browning Pipestem
Browning Pipestem is an Otoe Missouria Osage Indian from Nor-
man, Oklahoma, and a tribal council member of the Otoe-Missouria.
Mr. Pipestem, a graduate of the Oklahoma State University Law
School is a partner in the law firm of Pipestem, Rivas, and Charles. He
is married and is the father of two children.
TASK FORCE 1 : TERMINATED AND NON-FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIANS
Chairwoman: Jo Jo Hunt
Jo Jo Hunt is a Lumbee from North Carolina. She graduated cum
laude from Pembroke State University in 1970, and received her de-
gree from Duke University Law School in 1973. After legal experi-
ence as a law clerk with a Washington, D.C., law firm and with the
Washington Office of Pine Tree Legal Assistance of Calais, Maine,
Ms. Hunt was hired as a counsel for the Indian Affairs Subcommittee
in the U.S. House of Representatives. She has also been active in sev-
eral national Indian organizations.
Memher: John Stevens
John Stevens is a Passamaquoddy Indian from Maine. He has
been Commissioner of Maine's Department of Indian Affairs for the
past 4 years. He has long been active in tribal affairs and was em-
ployed as director of the Passamaquoddy Community Action Pro-
gram. He also worked in the paper mills for 15 years, during which
time he was a union leader. He is currently active in a large number
of local and national Indian organizations, in addition to serving on
several State councils.
Memher: Rohert Bojorcas
Robert Bojorcas is a member of Klamath Tribe. Formerly a coun-
selor at Central Oregon Community College and at the University of
Oregon, he was, until recently, business manager and education chair-
18
man for the Shoal water Bay Tribe. Mr. Bojorcas is currently working
with CETA as title III coordinator. He has been very active in the
affairs of both the terminated Klamath Tribe — serving as a tribal
council member — and of Northwestern Indian organizations. He has
attended college and is a graduate of the Indian Manpower Training
Center in Phoenix. Mr. Bojorcas is married and has two children.
TASK FORCE 1 1 : ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE
Chairman: Reuben Snake
Keuben Snake is a member of the Winnebago Tribe. He is currently
the education project director of the Sioux City American Indian
Center. Prior to this, he was a national field trainer for Indian edu-
cation training in which position he made 80 field trips to 27 States.
He has also been educational director for the Nebraska Inter-Tribal
Development Corp. Mr. Snake has organized a number of conferences
and workshops on alcohol and drug abuse ; he has helped in develop-
ing projects to deal with these problems and has also helped in estab-
lishing an alcohol recovery house in Winnebago, Nebr. Mr. Snake is
active in the Native American Church, is married and has six children.
Member: George Hawkins
George Hawkins is a Southern Cheyenne from Oklahoma. After
years of intermittent work due to drinking problems, Mr. Hawkins en-
tered a rehabilitation program in 1966. Soon hired as a janitor, he left
that job to become director of the Cheyenne- Arapaho Alcoholic Re-
habilitation Center. He is now executive director of the United Indian
Recovery Association, which he organized. Mr. Hawkins has been
involved in several other State and national organizations relating to
alcoholism and has been active in Oklahoma Indian Affairs.
IV. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION
How THE Work Was Accomplished
Between the Commission meetings in March 5 and May 2, 1975, the
staff concentrated primarily on the legislative interpretation of Pub-
lic Law 93-580, drafting proper policy and procedural and admin-
istrative guidelines for the preliminary study review.
The principal subject discussed by the Commission at its May 2
meeting was related to the functional duties and delegated authorities
of the organizational components of the AIPRC : The Commissioners,
the task forces, and the staff.
The Commission members decided to meet periodically to establish
review and approve policies and procedures for focusing and refining
the objectives of the act which created the Commission.
The Commission, at the May 2 meeting, determined that the Direc-
tor, General Counsel, and staff assistant would conduct the adminis-
trative, operational, and task forces coordination duties on a day-to-
day basis under the general supervision of the Director. The functions
that were necessary for the staff to perform were to : Secure services,
facilities, and necessary equipment ; secure qualified and adequate staff
to perform necessary studies ; review and process task force quarterly
reports and forward them for study and comment by the Commission-
ers ; develop initial research, bibliography and historical materials as a
reference tool for each task force subject area; develop adequate ad-
ministrative, financial, procurement, budgetary, and equipment con-
trols to assure compliance with rules and regulations of the Congress;
plan, coordinate, arrange and conduct meetings, hearings, and re-
search, arrange communication contacts with Indian tribes, organiza-
tions and individuals as necessary to achieve maximum input from the
national Indian community; plan, coordinate, and arrange meetings
with governmental units of the executive and legislative branches to
provide access for interrelated elements to be considered by Commis-
sion staff and appropriate task forces.
"The task force members as provided in the act shall consist of three
members, a majority of whom are of Indian descent." The act required
such task forces to make preliminary investigations and studies in
various areas of Indian affairs, including but not limited to nine listed
general subjects. Sec. 4(d) required the Commission to provide ade-
quate staff support in addition to the regular Commission staff which
is charged with the supervisory and task force coordination responsi-
bilities. The Commission determined that the task force groups would
operate within the administrative policies and procedures provided
by the Commission and would perform the following functions: Plan
and devise the manner in which such investigative work would be car-
ried out to fulfill the scope of work ; utilize the services of task force
specialists, technical consultants, clerical personnel and such other per-
sonnel which may be required to provide a professionally and techni-
cally adequate support group for presentation of conclusions and rec-
ommendations on the subject matter before the task force ; review the
scope and anticipated problem areas of each subject, and evaluate the
elements in such a manner as to determine whether current activities
are adequate. Review such problems on a national basis to determine
whether changes in national policy are needed and what specific
changes should be recommended ; report to the Director to assure co-
ordination and adequate supervision of the task force by the Director
and the staff of the Commission ; devote the amount of time required to
perform the duties for which the individual task force members have
been selected. When task force members are unable to perform their
duties for health or personal reasons, they shall be replaced with inter-
ested and qualified candidates; attend and review Indian meetings
which pertain and contribute knowledge and information to support
the conclusions and recommendations of their task force.
The following is a graphic illustration of the inter-relationship of
the various components of the American Indian Policy Review
Commission :
COMMISSION
{
People Who Are
Selected Based
Their Intimate Knowledge
of Indian Problem Areas:
Tribal Leaders
Tribal Business Managers
Teachers
Tribal Planners
Tribal Committee Chairmen for
Land Use Planning
Water Development 6. Rights
Etc.
Professional
Consultants In:
Statistical Analysis
Program & Budget
Technical Writing
Management Systems
Administrative, etc.
as required.
Expert in
Investigative
Research of
Task Force
Subject Areas
Specialists in Task
Force Subject Areas:
Hydrologists
Lawyers
Economists
Agriculturists, etc.
as required by the
Investigative Task
Force
V. THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMIS-
SION: ITS OBJECTIVES, FUNCTIONS, AND OPERA-
TIONS
Within the scope of the Commission's approved direction, the admin-
istration, operation, and planning processes necessary to implement
Public Law 93-580 (the American Indian Policy Review Commission) ,
were necessarily complex. In order that no misunderstandings arise
related to the purposes, goals, and objectives of the AIPRC mission,
the Commission established specific guidelines which were extracted
from the legislation and from other adopted procedures in order to
summarize the planned implementation of the law. This was dis-
tributed to all Commission members, staff, consultants and task force
personnel.
1. Planning Philosophy
The philosophy of the planning approach was extracted from the
joint resolution itself in which the Commission's organization and
purposes were rather explicitly defined. In its initial findings, the
Congress, in its joint resolution, said that :
(a) Administrative policy has traditionally shifted and changed without ra-
tional design and consistent goals to achieve Indian self-suflSciency ;
(6) There has been no comprehensive review on the conduct of Indian affairs
since the 1928 Meriam report ; and
(c) To carry out its responsibilities and plenary powers, the Congress con-
sidered the review as imperative.
2. Planning Approach
The planning approach was deemed necessary after review of pre-
vious reports, investigations, various task force studies, and oversight
reports on Indian affairs. In reviewing these, particularly the Meriam
Report, the professional staff determined that there were two elements
substantively missing from all previous reviews :
Indian participation and options, and
Documented proof of conclusions.
There had been cosmetic attempts at soliciting Indian opinion before
but never in a meaningful manner. It was determined that these two
missing elements would represent the hallmark of AIPRC's review
and investigations.
Indian participation and opinion was to be in the form of docu-
niented and verified records. Indian opinion recorded previously meant
historical records were to be officially reviewed and included. These
were in the form of previous hearings, complaints, resolutions, studies,
et cetera. Current studies being made must be documented in these same
forms, that is: testimony, hearings, complaints, resolutions, tribal
studies, and other documented Indian input. These supportable facts
through Indian participation were intended to provide these two
missing elements.
3. Organization
The act prescribed the general organization with support staff and
duties to perform. An organizational relationship plan between the
Commission, professional staff, core staff, consultants and the task
forces and their specialists was approved at the Commission meeting
of May 2, 1975. In essence, it provided that :
The staff director would coordinate the task forces.
The three-member task force would supervise the activities of
the specialists.
The task force central core and administrative staff would relate
to the task force but would be supervised by professional staff.
Technical core staff would supply assistance in legal research,
technical writing, program and budget analysis, and clerical
research.
A mix of consultants, task force personnel, support staff, in-
terns, and professional staff would accomplish the work.
Subsequently, the above was restated in the original budget request
and supplementary appropriations request. In addition to the duties
of the staff director, other supervision was delegated to the staff direc-
tor by the Chairman of the Commission by motion, and procedures
were adopted. The Commissioners voted to become ex officio members
of all task forces.
4. Administrative Implementation
The unique nature and mix of the Commission created several oper-
ational and administrative problems since it was literally the first
joint-congressional citizen commission in the history of the country.
Early logistical problems in the administration of the Commission
were resolved by the staff after consultation with the Senate Financial
Clerk, Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, the Office of the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, and the staff of the Senate Rules Committee and
House Administration Committee.
22
The professional staff decided that a minimum amount of funds
should be expended on early organization and administration in order
to make a maximum of funds available for the very important task
force work. With the approval of the AIPRC, the staff, with the
assistance of one management specialist and an intern, completed the
entire logistical and administrative support preparation by June 1.
Although time was of the essence, it was thought that more careful
preparation would, in the end, better serve the intents of the
Commission.
It was initially established that :
(a) The Commission staff was to avail itself of office space in
the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers while office space was
being prepared in House Annex No. 2.
(&) It was necessary for the staff to submit budget requests to
the legislative Appropriations Subcommittees in the House and
the Senate for fiscal year 1975, fiscal year 1976 and fiscal year 1977.
The budget request for this period was in the amount of $2.6 mil-
lion. This budget was reviewed and discussed and approved by
the Commission at its meeting on May 2.
(c) Administrative operations: Procedures were necessary to
satisfy the rules of the Senate under whose funding the Commis-
sion operated. Meetings with the Disbursement Office personnel
were held and a pamphlet was prepared on employment, travel,
expenses, and supplies for the use of the Commission members and
employees.
(d) A manual of operations including functional statements,
delegations of authority, administrative policies on employment,
and accounting was produced which complied with Senate rules.
Additional details were necessary to provide for the peculiar
organization of the Commission.
(e) A separate double entry accounting system was established
within the Commission to provide for a separate chart of accounts
for each section including each task force. This provided the staff
with the capability to closely monitor expenditures in a timely
fashion.
A manual which included functional statements, delegations of
authority, administrative policies on employment, and accounting was
produced which complied with the Senate rules and legislative require-
ments. Additional details consisted of provisions which were necessary
for the administration of a joint congressional citizen's commission
participation. The following charts illustrate the flow and organiza-
tion of the AIPRC activity.
[
23
THE SCHEDULE. Key Daces In The Commission's Lifespan
1/2/75 7/11/75
ACT TASK
APPROVED FORCE
SELECTED
7/21/75 8/8/75 10/21/75 1/21/76
-• • •—
BEGIN 8/4/75 9/22/75 11/4/75 2/4/76
TASK ^ ^ ^ ^
FORCE V ^ ^ ^
4/21/7<
STS DUE
5/4/76
8/75 9/1/75 11/18/76 2/18/76 5/18/76
•*i2\m{ \
Key
Group A:
Task Forces 1, 2, 3, 4
Group B:
Task Forces 6, 7, 11
Group C:
Task Forces 5, 8, 9, 10
5/16/77
5/17/77
Review & Recommendations
On Tentative Report Due
From Tribes, States,
Congressional Offices, e
Final Review, Mark-up, S
Approval of Report
by AIPRC
Final Report Submiss
tit Extended by Congr
. ^ Submitted to Speaker of tl
^J House i President pro tern
^^he Senate*
^fc 6/30/77 Commissi
Eipires
24
ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTATIVES
STAFF CONSULTANTS
Ray Goetting
John Sykes
t Responsibility and the
ral-Indian Relationship
uding Treaty
Task Force
3:
Federal Ad
minis
ration
ructu
e of
Indian Af
airs
Task Force 4:
Federal, State and Tribal
Jurisdiction
SPECIAL CONSULTANTS
ADMINISTRATION
Task
Force
7:
Rese
and
Development
Resource Pr
otectlon
Task Force 10:
on-Fede
ail.
Task Force 1
Indian Alcoh
Drug Abuse
1 and
VI. HOW THE AIPRC FINAL REPORT WAS WRITTEN
The last of the task force reports was filed in late September 1976.
However, preliminary work on developing the AIPRC final report
had begun in September.
Two special consultants were engaged to aid in the editorial work
and write papers of their own: the late D'Arcy McNickle, a noted
Indian historian, under whose direction a concise history of Indian
affairs was developed, and Charles Wilkinson, professor of law at
the University of Oregon, who authored a paper on major concepts
in Indian law. The McNickle paper appears as chapter 1 of the report
and the Wilkinson paper as chapter 3.
The first step in the development of the final report was condensation
of the 11 task force reports and two special studies the AIPRC had
generated in its first 18 months of operation. Special reports submit-
ted by Indian tribes and their findings were included in references to
the Commission. A gross subject matter outline was prepared. Then,
each report was carefully studied and examined to extract from each
the findings and conclusions. These were summarized with appropriate
reference to the report from which the finding or conclusion was
drawn.
These finding and conclusions were then organized under the ap-
propriate headings of the gross subject matter outline. In addition
to this, and cataloging of findings and conclusions into a single com-
prehensive form, the staff developed a set of principles which .ap-
peared to underlie the findings and conclusions of the various task
force reports and studies. These principles served as a focal point
for discussion of the main body of the final report.
The first substantive meetmg of the AIPRC Commissioners and
staff was held November 19-23, 1976. Over this 5-day period, every
facet of the report was discussed. The chapter on the role and legal
character of tribal government generated the most discussion. The
debate and discussion between all elements of the Commission were
considered to be the most stimulating and exciting activity of the
Commission up to that point. The chapters on Federal administra-
tion and economic development were found to be weak and in need of
basic development. There was general agreement on the findings and
recommendations in matters of social services. However, there were
notable questions with respect to delivery of services to Indians in
urban areas and to general eligibility of Indian tribes to qualify for
Federal domestic assistance programs available to State and local
governments.
From December 1976, to March 1977, all effort was bent toward plac-
ing the report in legible and comprehensible form, and filling in the
major gaps which had been identified. Commission meetings were held
January 6, 7; February 4, 5; February 24, 25; and March 4, 1977
to review the work of the staff, refine the language of the report,
and sharpen the recommendations which were to be made. The pri-
mary area of controversy continued to center on tribal government.
26
On March 4, 1977, a tentative final draft report was presented by
the staff to the 11 Commissioners. Eleven hundred copies of this tenta-
tive draft were mailed to Indian tribes, intertribal organizations, in-
terested congressional offices. Federal and State agencies, and other
interested parties, both Indian and non-Indian. Comments were re-
quested by April 21, to allow time to make modifications in the report
prior to its final presentation to Congress on May 17. The major area
of concern highlighted during this period was the continued inade-
quacy of the chapter on economic development. As a consequence of
this criticism, this chapter was completely rewritten.
On May 12, 13, and 16, 1977, the Commission met for the last time.
Those chapters or portions of chapters which had not previously been
voted on and approved were reviewed and adopted. The most notable
of these were the chapters on Federal administration and economic
development. A foreword and a summary of recommendations were
adopted, separate statements of Commissioners were accepted, and
the report was submitted to the Speaker of the House and the Presi-
dent Pro Tempore of the Senate on May 17.
The Commission formally expired on June 30, 1977.
VII. ADMINISTRATION
Funding in the amount of $2,600,000 was authorized in Public Law
93-580, as amended, for the financial requirements of the American
Indian Policy Review Commission for the period January 2, 1975,
through June 30, 1977, This period of time covered a portion of fiscal
year 1975, all of fiscal year 1976, the transitional period of July-
September 1976, and a portion of fiscal year 1977. Budget requests for
each fiscal year and the transitional period were prepared and de-
fended successfully before the House and Senate Appropriation Com-
mittees. In addition, two supplemental requests were secured. The
total authorization of $2,600,000 was appropriated with the exception
of $37.68.
It was evident from the beginning that the Commission had tre-
mendous responsibilities complicated by a compressed timetable of 1
year for task force reports and approximately 2 years overall.
Funds appropriated were disbursed under Senate rules and regu-
lations through the Financial Clerk of the U.S. Senate.
Each task force was delegated the entire administration and con-
duct of its report and each supervised the disposition of its own funds
in order to further guarantee the independence and integrity of the
final task force report.
Because of the complexity of the Commission organization which
included 11 separate and distinct task forces, a central staff, and sup-
27
port staff to the task forces, a budget and accounting system was
designed and established to provide controls and financial information
far beyond the requirements established by the Senate Financial Clerk.
The double-entry system consisted of a general ledger, an expendi-
ture ledger, a task force cost ledger, and a petty cash expenditure
ledger.
Budgets were prepared for each of the 11 task forces, the task force
support unit, the central staff and Commissioners. Based on these
budgets, funds were allocated to each of the task force chairmen.
Using the cost accounting system established, each task force chair-
man was furnished each month with a financial status report reflect-
ing, by expense item, the budgeted amount, the amount expended
for the current month, the accumulated expenditures, the balance of
funds available for the remaining terms of the task force, and per-
cent expended. The term of the task force was computed on a per-
centage basis for comparison with percentage of funds expended. On
a quarterly basis, and more often during the last quarter of task
force operations, the director and the professional staff assistant re-
viewed and analyzed these financial reports and made adjustments
within and between task forces to make certain that all funds were
being expended in a timely and appropriate manner and, most im-
portantly, that over obligations could not be incurred.
Additionally, (1) a balance sheet was prepared each month reflect-
ing the current status of funds available from appropriation warrants
and cash advanced by the Senate Disbursing Office for petty cash, and
(2) an expenditure statement reflecting total expenditures by ex-
pense items for the entire Commission for the current accounting
period.
Each month, due to the time lag between submission of vouchers and
payment by the Senate Disbursing Office, a statement was prepared
reconciling AIPRC expenditures with Senate Disbursing Office ex-
penditures.
The accounting procedures also included provision for accrued ex-
penditures or obligation of funds immediately upon commitment. This
was extremely important, since statements based solely upon cash
expenditures do not reflect a true status of funds available for future
use.
On at least two occasions, during the life of the Commission, a re-
view of the financial statements indicated that a continuation of the
then current expenditure rate would cause an overobligation and steps
were taken to curtail expenditures. During the last 8 months of the
term of the Commission, precise projections of expenditures for each
remaining month were made.
The following statements reflect the financial status of the AIPRC
as of July 31, 1977.
93-440 O - 78 - 3
28
AMERKSN INDIAN POUCT REVIEW OQMMISSiaJ
BAIANCE SHEET
:AS of JL)IX31,'1977
Cash In Bank $ -0-
Mvances Peceivable -0- $ -0-
Petty Cash -0-
Funds Available:
FY 1975 Advance from Senate Contingency Fund 51,084.32
Less: Expenditures 51,084.32 -0-
FY 1976 Appropriations 1,860,168. Ooi/
Less: Expenditures 1,859,394.00 774. C
Fy 197T i^ropriations 322,710. 00^^^^
Less: Expenditures . 316,842.37
■ 1977 ;^ropriations 366,000.00^/
Less: Expenditures 364,721.39 1,278.61 7,920.24
Authorization Available -
- P.L.
93-
-580
(as amended)
2,600,000.00
Less:
1975 Advance from Senate Contingency
1976 ;^)propriation
1976 Supplemental
197T Appropriation
197T S\5>plemental
1977 Appropriation
1977 Supplanental
Fund
51,084.32
1,500,000.00
385,168.00
300,000.00
710.00
263,000.00
100,000.00
2,599,962.32
Accrued Expenditures
1976
197T
1977
6,542.98
948.00
384.00
7,874.98
TOOM, ASSETS $ 15.832.90
LIABILITIES AND FUND BAIANCE
Reserve for Eiicunibrances
Advance from Senate for Petty Cash $ -0-
Expenditures 25z
Authorization - P.L. 93-580 (as amended)
2,600,000.00
Less: Expenditures
1975
51,084.32
1976
1,859,394.00
197T
316,842.37
1977
364,721.39
2,592,042.08
TCfTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BAIANCE $ 15,832.90
Reflects transfer of $25,000 authorized between FY 1976 ard FY 197T.
Reflects transfer of $3,000 authorized between FY 197T and FY 1977.
r- a\ I 00
29
ss
s
§
s
^S
s
ssgs
oo
Oi
ss '
s
m
3
S " 1
' s
' sss§
VD
o
ss'
??
r~
^
""S
CO
-" -
a\
^
§g
76,206.00
7,349.00
11,844.00
5,950.00
28,638.00
7,971.00
13,565.00
9,430.00
209.00
4,417.00
P §
2 i
D li.
Z 2 O
< W
1 .H ^ n ko
o T >
^ o o r^ (N ^3* o^
247.17
245.49
878.62
702.61
599.86
628.23
685.37)
567.90)
313.02)
314.00)
277.15
289.63)
S
^»<^^iC2C2;;I-'Ci
S Sn li £ "
s
S§?^S§
.H
s
^ninor-ovDtNnoor-^oo
&
r~
D in rsi in r-
o
£S^2S '
i
!2i5;SotntC?;3§f2SSo
r^^O(^n.Haj^oo(NOO ■*
i
^P^SSS
5
S""""^
§
VC
^ .n^ .n^ ^^ ^
r^
5
o o o o o o
r.mr-.m-a-mcT.rMO'a'fM.HO
ro
00
1-
CM
'
Hoovn^r-ooininnHO-rr^
m
VD
c
^-s;?£ss-ss5^s
g
g
■^
.Ti
^1
:^l
o
c
en
GO
•"i
jj
'
U
"8
•lis 5 vv
HI ^ H tn (U <u
wS S -H to en g
o o o c <D ffl H
S £ S ra fl S
^ r""'
m'^l
3.3
Sh i o 4J m oj dj
y q -H ui c u o
ft « -p
Q '.a «
O •• 10 ^
S § § 1-H 8
en Di -H a
■^ ^ .s .5 g i g.
30
Amebican Indian Policy Review Commission
reconciliation fiscal year 1976
July 31, 1977
AIPRC expenditures $1, 859, 3&4. 00
Less outstanding vouchers 1, 939. 28
Total 1, 857, 454. 72
Senate disbursing vouchers 1, 858, 445. 48
Less posted as increases to appropriation 990. 76
Total 1, 857, 454. 72
American Indian Policy Review Commission
reconciliation fiscal year 197t
July 31, 1977
AIPRC expenditures $316, 842. 37
Senate disbursing vouchers 317, 102. 37
Less posted as increase to appropriation 260. 00
Total 316, 842. 37
American Indian Policy Review Commission
reconciliation fiscal year 1977
July 31, 1977
AIPRC expenditures $364, 721. 39
Less outstanding vouchers 966. 96
Less correction 70. 00
Total 363, 684. 43
Senate disbursing vouchers 363, 684. 43
31
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
CORE
FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT FOR M5NTH ENDING JULY 31, 1977
ITEM
SALARY AND OOMPENSATION
Indian Conmissioners
Staff
Support to T/F t, Cam.
Student Stipend
618 contracted Studies
TRAVEL
Indian Conmissioners
Congressional -Conmissii
Staff
Staff Consultants
Hearing Expenses
Office Supplies
Conmuni cations
Newspapers, Magazines
Printing & Reproduction
TCflAIS
BUDGET EXPENDITURES
7/1/75- 7/1/75-
9/30/76 9/30/76
BALANCE
FY 1976
t. 197T
42,000.00
159,300.00
342,200.00
23,000.00
S 46,172.63
159,292.54
325,362.66
18,511.94
$(4,172.63)
7.46
16,837.34
4,486.06
78,000.00
84,128.22
(6,128.22)
126,000.00
104,645.63
21,354.37
35,834.74 1,665.26
24,000.00
24,824.67
(824.67)
2,000.00
1,752.83
247.17
25,000.00
24,754.51
245.49
57,000.00
54,121.38
2,878.62
6,000.00
7.685.37
(1,685.37)
28,987.00
32,300.02
(3,313.02)
•29,000.00
50,314.00
(21,314.00)
3,000.00
1,722.85
1,277.15
12,000.00
$985,713.62
(2,289.63)
S 994,987.00
S 9,273.38
BUDGET
10/1/76-
6/30/77
EXPENDITURES BALANCE
10/1/76- FY
6/30/77 1977
$ 23,454.00
54,987,00
121,980.00
S 22,256.67
54,986.93
119,890.92
51,197.33
.07
2,069.08
51,747.00
54,245.20
(2,498.20)
24,459.00
24,458.84
.16
7,349.00
7,349.08
(.08,
11,844.00
12,145.07
(301.07)
5,950.00
28,638.00
5,753.41
29,228.05
196.59
(590.05)
7,971.00
13,565.00
9,430.00
209.00
4,417.00
8,282.65
12,669.90
8.543.19
209.01
5,066.47
(311.65)
895.10
886.61
(.01)
669.47
$366,000.00
$365,105.39
S 894.61
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Task Force #1 Trust Responsibilities and the Federal-Indian Relationship
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977
Task Force Term July 21, 1975 to July 20, 1976
Account
Number
t?r ^
613
615
629
630
631
Salary & Compensation:
Task Force Members
Consultants:
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Travel:
Task Force Members
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Hearing expenses
Total
91,208
of T F #1 is lOOZ completed and 96
22,050
8,300
13,558
5,430
1,466
22,304.07
8,268.84
11,543.85
4,917.45
994.47
-0- 88,012.03 96.5%
5% financially expended.
101.0%
99.6%
85.1%
90.6%
67.8%
(254 .07)
31.16
2,014,15
512.55
471.53
32
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Task Force 112 Tribal Government
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977
Task Force Term July 21, 1975 to July 20, 1976
Account
Number
^>^
613
615
629
630
631
Consultants:
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Travel :
Task Force MembeiR
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Hearing Expenses
Total
Reduction 5/31/76*
19,234
21,000
18,475
12,150
6,450
667
111. 442
33.73)
-0-
-0-
(88.73)
19,447.31
24,465.42
17,074.57
10,545.25
5,344.84
112.243.30
The term of TF #2 is 100% completed
♦Share of cost of Historical Indian
92.4%
86.8%
82.9%
45.5%
96.7%
-0-
100.7%
(213.31)
(3,465.42)
1,400.43
1,604.75
1,105.16
3-865.70
and 100.7% financially expended.
Priorities and Policies 1900-1975
-4,667.00
(801.30)
performed by Task Force #3.
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Task Force //3 Federal Administration & the Structure of Indian Affairs
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977
Task Force Term July 21, 1975 to July 20, 1976
yj" ^/ H /
/
/
Account
Number
Expense Item
A
y/
Salary & Compensation:
605
Task Force Members
Consultants:
25,500
-0-
29,188.24
114.5%
(3,688.24,1
613
Task Force Specialist
40,79{
-0-
38,294.23
93.9%
2,495.77
615
Task Force Consultant
Travel:
6,80(
-0-
23,143.53
340.3%
(16,343.58)
629
Task Force Members
20,00(
-0-
23,563.90
117.8%
(3,563.90)
630
Task Force Specialist
12,601
-0-
13,194.18
104.7%
(594.18)
631
Task Force Consultants
9,0b(
-0-
15,555.71
172.8%
(6,555.71)
635
Hearing Expenses
Total
5.00(
-0-
3,536.02
70.7%
1,463.98
119, 69(
-0-
146,475.86
122.4%
(26,785.86)
Increase 5/31/76*
Total adjusted
+23,33:
-0-
-0-
-0-
+23.335.00
143,02:
-0-
146,475.86
102.4%
(3,450.86)
The term of Task Force #3 1
3 100% c
omplete
1 and 102.4%
financially
expended.
♦Transfer from other Task Forces for share of cost of Historical Indian
Priorities and Policies —1900-1975 project.
33
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Task Force 04 Federal, State & Tribal Jurisdiction
Financial Status Report for Month ending July 31, 1977
Task Force Term July 21, 1975 to July 20, 1976
/
Account
Number
Expense Item
/
y/
605
Salary & Compensation:
Task Force Members
22,900
-0-
24,061.69
105. IX
(1,161.69)
613
615
619
Consultants:
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Contracted Studies
29,200
10,750
3,100
-0-
-0-
-0-
29,1A9.72
5,878.10
3,110.00
99.8%
54.7%
100.3%
50.28
4,871.90
(10.00)
629
630
631
Travel :
Task Force Members
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
20,95(
21,43(
1.72(
(88.73)
-0-
-0-
23.19A.81
20,012.75
1,465.45
110.7%
93.4%
85.2%
(2,244.81)
1,417.25
254.55
635
Hearing Expenses
Total
Reduction 5/31/76*
Total adjusted
6.35(
-0-
8,680.50
136.7%
(2,330.50)
116, 40(
-A.66
(88.73)
-0-
115,553.02
-0-
99.3%
-0-
846.98
-4,667.00
111,73
(88.73)
115,553.02
103.4%
(3,820.02)
The term of Task Force #4 is 100% completed and 103.4% financially expended
*Share of cost of Historical Indian Priorities & Policies~1900-1975
project performed by Task Force #3.
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Task Force #5 Indian Education
Financial Status Report for Month ending July 31, 1977
Task Force Term August 18, 1975 to August 17, 1976
> A
Expense Item
'^l
</
^"-^
613
615
619
629
630
631
Salary and Compensation:
Task Force Members
Consultants:
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultant^
Contracted Studies
Travel:
Task Force Members
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Hearing Expenses
Total
The term of Task Force #5 ife 100%
29,764
5,212
12,000
19,207
2,50.0
3.246
65.27
-0-
-0-
28,860.51
8,926.60
17,401.90
4,670.35
2,642.38
Tj:!?
97.0%
171.3%
105.7%
90.6%
186 . 8%
81.4%
letei and 103.8% financially expended.
903.49
(3,714.60)
(681.28)
1,805.10
(2,170.35)
603.62
(3.587.61)
34
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Task Force #6 Indian Health
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31,
Task Force Term August 4, IQTS ^n Anpiiar 'H,
%'^^;
613
615
629
630
631
Salary and Compensation;
Task Force Members
Consultants:
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultant
Travel;
Task Force Members
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultant
Hearing Expenses
Total
To replace funds taken in
excess
(192,56) 21,559.
-0-
16,000
24,700
5,900
8,200
-0-
-0-
496,48)
-0"
-0-
100
H2.000
689,04)
-0-
95,704.63
The term of Task Force #6 is 100% completed and 103.9%
• -0-
34,197.22
22,952,74
3,132.98
5,791.45
8.070.44
95,704.63
-0-
-0-
213.7%
92.9%
53.1%
70,6%
-0-
C18,197.22)
1,747.26
2,767.02
2,408,55
(3.070.44)
(15,604.63)
103.9% (3,604.63)
financially expended.
Account
Number
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Task Force #7 Reservation & Resource Development & Protection
Financial Status Report for Month ending July 31, 1977
Task Force Term August 4, 19 75 to Auejist 3. \976
rT ^.
Expense Item
\^
613
615
617
629
630
631
635
Salary and Compensation:
Task Force Members
Consultants:
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Task Force Researcher
Travel:
Task Force Members
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Hearing Expenses
Total
Reduction 5/31/76*
Total adjusted
The term of Task Force ill
24,937
27,297
6,200
11,545[312.00)
11,31C
16,646
6,30C
25,047.70
19,706.23
6,751.75
15,260.39
9,256.27
19,085.69
100.4%
72.2%
108.9%
132.2%
81.9%
114.6%
115,34(t312.00)
-4.66
94 . 3%
-0-
110,67
100% d
(110.70)
7,590.77
(551.75)
(3,715.39)
2,053.73
(2,439.69)
6,537.97
-4.667.00
*Share of cost of Historical Indian Priorities and Policies
project performed by Task Force #3.
3% financially ixpended.
1900-1975—
35
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Task Force tf8 Urban and Rural Non-Reservation Indians
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977
Task Force Term August 18, 1975 to August 17, 1976
/
^<Kv.^ /
/
Account
Number
Expense Item /^^b"'
605
613
615
629
630
.631
635
Salary & Compensation:
Task Force Members
consultants:
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Travel:
Task Force Members
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
learing Expenses
Total
44,228
16,986
6,652
27,871
8,047
1,951
4,140
-0-
-0-
-0-
48.48
-0-
-0-
-0-
45,410.05
17,883.14
6,652.35
26,942.64
7,587.73
1,592.03
4,911.69
102.7%
105.3%
100.0%
96 . 7%
94.3%
81.6%
118.6%
(1,182.05)
(897.14)
(.35)
928.36
459.27
358.97
(771.69)
109,875
48.48
110,979.63
101.0%
(1,104.63)
The term of Task Force #8 is 100% completed and 101.0% financially expended.
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Task Force #9 Indian Law Revision, Consolidation & Codification
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977
Task Force Term August 18, 1975 ta_Aii«ui
Consultants :
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Task Force Researcher
Travel:
Task Force Members
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Hearing Expenses
Total
Reduction 5/31/76*
18,103
15,000
13,900
4,50C
1,60C
18,606.45
11,327.35
13,218.56
6,355.87
3,625.17
1,459.25
89,845.06
-0-
102.7%
75.5%
95.1%
75.7%
80.5%
90.6%
6.4%
-0-
(503
3,672
681
2,041.
874.
150.
he term of Task Force #9 is 100% completed 6, 90.4% financially expended.
*Share of cost of Historical Indian Priorities and Policies~1900-1975~
project performed by Task Force #3.
36
613
615
629
630
631
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Task Force #10 Terminated and Non-Federally Recognized
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977
Task Force Term August 18, 1975 fn Anyar ]7. 1976
Salary and Compensation:
Task Force Members
Consultants:
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Travel :
Task Force Members
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Hearing Expenses
Total
/5 to,
18,106
6,500
26,70(
4,97
4,90d
-0-
-0-
(290.8
A8.4i
48.481
18,107.23
20,086.44
20,977.74
5,754.51
5.382.97
100. OX
309.05:
78.6%
115.7%
109.9%
161.4%
106.7%
The term of Task Force #10 is 100% completed and 106.7% financially expended
(1.23)
(13,586.44)
5,722.26 .
(779.51)
(482.97)
(3,071.87)
(8,138.63)
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Task Force // 11 Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977
Task Force Term August 4, 1975 to August 8. 1976
Account
Number
629
630
631
Salary & Compensation:
Task Force Members
Consultants:
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Travel :
Task Force Members
Task Force Specialist
Task Force Consultants
Hearing Expenses
Total
12,700
10,
5,00(
.20
8. 3D
-0'
(598. ID
5,808.98
16,449.22
13,431.98
8,095.50
4,468.53
72,334.14
105.8%
76.7%
89.4%
.02
1,316.78
(731.98)
2,454.50
531.47
(1,813.67)
The term of Task Force #11 is 100% completed and 98.6% financially expended
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MATERIALS USED BY THE
COMMISSION
(37)
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MATERIALS USED BY THE
COMMISSION
[Compiled by Catherine K. Romano and SuzAnne Ahn]
INTRODUCTION
This bibliography represents some of the major research documents
used by the Commission and its task forces in the investigation of
their respective subject areas and in the formulation of recommenda-
tions to Congress contained in their final reports. In many instances
these materials complement those footnoted in the reports. Under-
taking a comprehensive bibliography was far beyond our capability.
This is, rather, a selected listing of the more easily obtained docu-
ments used, which has been compiled from items in the Commission's
central research files, the list of items borrowed from the Library of
Congress and from certain bibliographies included in task force re-
ports. The following materials were also chosen for their availability
to the researcher in Indian affairs and can be obtained by the public
as published documents or through organizations or from Govern-
ment agencies by means of the Freedom of Information Act. Entries
are arranged alphabetically by general subject categories. We found
it useful, however, to list in separate sections all U.S. General Ac-
counting Office reports, Federal court cases, law review articles and
congressional documents. An additional section on bibliographies and
bibliographic services is included as an aid to the researcher.
During its study, the Commission recognized the lack of a central
means by which to identify and locate information on Indian affairs
and, further, has realized the crucial role of historical policies and
relationships that span 2 centuries in forming a perspective for Fed-
eral decisionmaking on Indian issues. Accordingly, the Commission
formally recommended to Congress that the Library of Congress
should compile for publication in several phases a collection of na-
tive American studies resources.
Permanent records of the Commission including its research files,
unpublished hearings transcripts, and administrative records are
deposited in Record Group 220, Natural Resources Branch of the Na-
tional Archives, Washington, D.C. 20408, and are available to
searchers.
The Commission wishes to express its thanks to Nina Meiselman,
intern, and Deborah Pope, clerical assistant, for their valuable as-
sistance in preparation of the bibliography.
(39)
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 39
Bibliography of the Commission
Agriculture 43
Agriculture, U.S. Department of 43
Alaska 44
Alcohol and drug abuse 45
Allotment 49
Budget 50
Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S 50
Child welfare 55
Commerce, U.S. Department of 56
Commission on Civil Rights, U.S 57
Credit and loans 58
Crime and criminal law 58
Demography 59
Economic development 60
Education 65
Employment 76
Environment 77
Federal administration 77
Food and nutrition 78
Health • 79
Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Department of 84
Housing 87
Hunting and fishing rights 87
Indian Civil Rights Act 88
Indian organizations 88
Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) 88
Indian Self-Determination Act 89
Indians 89
Interior, U.S. Department of 99
Johnson O'Malley Act 100
Jurisdiction 101
Land 103
Menominee restoration 105
Micronesia 106
Mineral resources 106
Natural resources 110
OflBce of Economic Opportunity, U.S 111
Oklahoma 111
Preference, Indian 111
Recognition 112
Sovereignty 113
State-Indian relations 113
Taxation 114
Termination 115
Treaties 116
Tribal government 117
Trust relationship 118
Urban and rural Indians 118
Water resources 122
Special Materials
Bibliographies 125
Federal court cases on American Indian issues 129
Law Review articles 143
Reports issued by the General Accounting OflBce 153
(41)
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE COMMISSION
AGRICULTURE
Getty, Harry T. The San Carlos Indian Cattle Industry. Tucson,
Univ. of Arizona Press, 1974.
McGinnies, Goldman and Paylore. Food^ Fibre and Arid Lands.
Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1971
U.S. Department of Agriculture. A Bihliography on the Agriculture
of the American Indian. Prepared by Everett Edward and Wayne
Rasmussen. (U.S.D.A. Miscellaneous Publication Number 447)
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1942. 107 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Special Task Force for American
Indian Affairs. Survey of the Navajo Reservation^ Famvington,
New Mexico and Window Rock, Arizona, October 20-23, 1975,
Washington, 1975.
-. Survey of the Seminole Reservation, Hollywood, Fla., Jan-
uary 12-16, 1976. Washington, 1976.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indians
in Agriculture. (Missouri River Basin Investigation Project Bul-
letin 422) Bozeman, Mont., July, 1956.
AGRICULTURE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Financial and Technical Assist-
ance Provided by the Department of Agriculture and HUD for
Nonmetropolitan Planning District in Fiscal Year 1976; 6th An-
nual Report to the Congress. Washington, 1976.
-. Project and Geographic Breakdown: Budget Estimates
1977. Washington, 1976. 477 pp.
. Rural Development Goals; Second Annual Report of the
Secretary of Agriculture to the Congress. Washington, June, 1975.
59 pp.
Rural Development : Information and Technical Assistance
Delivered by the Department of Agriculture in Fiscal Year 1&7U.
Fifth Annual Report to the Congress. Washington, 1975. 94 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Amer-
ican Indians in Transition. (Agricultural Economic Report No.
283) Washington, 1975.
(43)
93-440 O - 78 - 4
44
. "Cultural Crossroads: American Indians in the 70's," The
Farm Index. (Nov.-Dec, 1974) : 1^14.
. Farm Real Estate Market Developments. Washington, July,
1973. 35 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration.
Rural Credit for American Indians: A Handbook of FmHA Pro-
grams. Washington. 23 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights. Participation
in VSDA Programs hy Ethnic Groups. Washington, July, 1971.
90 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Equal Opportunity. Report
on Follow-up to Indian Surveys. Washington, Spring, 1975.
. Report on Pilot Indian Surveys. Washington, Summer, 1974.
. Equal Opportunity Report; USD A Programs 1972. Wash-
ington, 1972. 118 pp.
. USD A Programs 1976. Washington, 1975. 205 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Service. Guide
to Federal Programs. Washington, 1975.
ALASKA
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Swmmary^ Project Description of the
Trans Alaska Pipeline System. Anchorage, Sept., 1974.
Bancroft, H. H. The Works of HubeH Howe Bancroft, Vol. XXXIII,
History of Alaska, 1830-1886. San Francisco, A.L. Bancroft Pub-
lishers, 1886.
Getches, David. TJie Borough Concept in Alaska; The Inupiat People.
Boulder, Colo., Native American Rights Fund.
Hippler, Arthur. Barrow and Kotzebue: An Exploratory Compar-
ison of Acculturation and Education in Two Large Northwestern
Alaska Villages. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community
Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, Dec, 1969.
. From Village to Town: An Intermediate Step in the Accul-
turation of Alaska Eskimos. Minneapolis, Trainmg Center for
Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, Oct., 1970.
Kleinfeld, Judith. Land claims and native manpower staging regional
and village corporations under the Alaska Native Vlaims Settle-
ment Act of 1971. Alaska Native Foundation, 1973.
Kresge, D. Bristol Bay: A Socioeconomic Study. Univ. of Alaska,
1974.
46
Native American Rights Fund. The Fifth Disaster — the Colonization
of the North Slope. Boulder, Colo., Jan.-Mar., 1975. 50 pp.
Rogers, George. Change in Alaska: People^ Politics^ and Petroleum.
Seattle, Univ. of Washington Press, 1970.
Schuyten, Peter J. "A novel corporation takes charge in Alaska's
Wilderness." Fortune, Vol. 92 (Oct., 1975) : 158-168.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service. Eskimos^ Indians and Aleuts of Alaska — a Digest. Wash-
ington, Mar., 1963. 47 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. ■2(c) Report: Federal Programs and
Alaska Natives. Task I — An Analysis of Alaska Natives' Well-Be-
ing; Task II — Federal Programs for Alaska Natives' Benefit; Task
III — A Survey of Natives' Views. 2 Vols. Washington.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Report
to the Secretary of the Interior by the Task Force on Alaska Native
Affairs. Washington, 1962.
-. Review Committee Report Number '2 for Program Agreement
EOOC lJt200493 Between the Central Council of the Tlingit and
Haida Indiana of Alaska and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Wash-
ington, Nov., 1974. 52 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian
Education Resources Center. Alaska Natives Need Assessment in
Education. 2 Vols. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 18)
Washington, 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Programs
related to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, through
June 30, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976, 25 pp.
U.S. Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska.
Alaska Natives and the Land. Anchorage, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
Oct., 1968.
U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-203) : History and
Analysis. Prepared by Richard S. Jones. Washington, May 22, 1972.
100 pp.
ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE
Agencies and Programs
Iowa, Office of the Governor. Comprehensive Treatment Program for
Indian Problem Drinkers. (NIAAA/NCALI Search Document
#0000009629) Des Moines, 1971.
Miller, Sheldon, E. Helmick and Lawrence Berg. "Alcoholism: A
Statewide Program Evaluation." American Jom-naZ of Psychiatry,
Vol.131 (1974): 210-214.
46
Shore, James and Billee Von Fumetti. "Three Alcohol Programs for
American Indians." American Journal of Psychiatry^ Vol. 128
(May, 1972) : 1450-1454.
Stevens, John W. Indian Alcoholism Field Survey. (NIAAA/NCALI
Search Document #0001009948) Rockville, Md., 1972.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Health Services
and Mental Health Administration. Highlights of the Indian
Health Program. Rockville, Md., Sept., 1971.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National In-
stitute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. NIAAA/NCALI Search
on Evaluation of Indian/ Alaskan Programs. Rockville, Md., 1976.
Special Report to the Congress on Alcohol and Health. Wash-
ington, Dec., 1974.
Second Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health:
New Knowledge. Washington, June, 1974.
"U.S. Journal : Gallup, New Mexico — Drunken Indians." New Yorker.,
Vol.47 (Sep. 25, 1971).
Wilson, Lawrence and James Shore. "Education of a Regional Indian
Alcohol Program." American Journal of Psychiatry., Vol. 132 (Mar.,
1975) : 255-258.
Cultural
Adler, Nathan and Daniel Goldman. "Gambling and Alcoholism,
Symptom Substitution and Functional Equivalents." Quarterly
Journal of Studies on Alcohol., (1969) : 733-735.
Baker, James. "Indians, Alcohol and Homicide." Journal of Social
Therapy, Vol. 5 (1959) : 270-275.
Berreman, Gerald. "Drinking Patterns of the Aleuts." Quarterly
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 17 (1952) : 503-514.
Broody, Hugh. Indians on Skid Row. Canada Northern Science Re-
search Group, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop-
ment, 1971.
Curley, Richard. "Drinking Patterns of Mescalero Apache." Quarterly
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 28 (Mar., 1967) : 116-131.
Dozier, Edward "Problem Drinking Among American Indians. The
Role of Sociocultural Deprivation." Quarterly Journal of Studies
in Alcohol,Yol. 27 (1966) : 72-87.
Drilling, Vern. Problems with Alcohol Among Urban Indians in
Minneapolis. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Pro-
grams, Univ. of Minnesota, Aug., 1970.
47
Everett, Michael. "Anthropological Expertise and the Realities of
White Mountain Apache Adolescent Drinking." Paper presented
at the Society for Applied Anthropology, 1973 Annual Meeting.
Ferguson, Frances. Change from Without and Within, Na/vajo In-
dians'' Response to an Alcoholism Treatment Program in Terms of
Social Stake. (NIAAA/NCALI Search Document #0000010518)
Rockville, Md., 1972.
Ferguson, Frances. '•''Stake in Society'''' theory used in evaluation of
Navajo Indians in an Alcoholism Treatment PrograTu. Dissertation
Thesis, Univ. of North Carolina, 1972.
Hamer, John H. "Acculturation Stress and the Functions of Alcohol
Among the Forest Potawatomi." Quarterly JourrwH of Studies on
Alcohol,Yol.26 (1965) : 285-302.
Hamer, John H. "Guardian Spirits, Alcohol and Cultural Defense
Mechamsms.^^ Anthropological (1969) : 215-241.
Heath, Dwight B. "Prohibition and Post-Repeal Drinking Patterns
Among the Navajo." Quarterly Journal of Studies on AUohol, Vol.
25 (1964): 119-135.
Hippler, Arthur E. "Alaskan Athabascan Technique for Overcofti«
mg Abuse." ^rc^^c, Vol. 27 (1974) : 53-57.
Honigmann, John J. and Irma. "How Baffin Island Eskimos Have
Learned to Use Alcohol." Social Forces. (1965) : 73-83.
Kim,Yong C. Study of Alcohol Consumption and Alcoholism Among
Saskatchewan Indians. (NIAAA/NCALI Search Document
#0000011905) Report. Rockville, Md., 1972.
Kline, James A., Vitali V. Rozynko, Gary Flint, and Arthur C.
Roberts. "Personality Characteristics of Male Native American
Alcoholic Patients." International Journal of the Addictions., Vol. 8
(1973): 729-732.
Kunitz, Stephen J. and Jerrold E. Levy. "Changing Ideas of Alcohol
Use Among Navajo Indians." Quarterly Journal of Studies on
Alcohol,Yol.B5 (1974) : 243-259.
Kunitz, Stephen J. Navajo Drinking Patterns. Yale Univ., Ph.D.
Dissertation, 1970. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1971 (Micro-
film #70-26, 1974).
Kuttner, Robert E. and Albert B. Lorincz. "Alcoholism and Addiction
mJJrhamzedSiouxlndia.ns.^^ Mental Hygiene (1967) : 530-541.
Lemert, Edwin M. "The Use of Alcohol in Three Salish Indian
Tribes." Qu/irterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 19
(1958): 90-107.
48
Levy, Jerrold E. and Stephen J. Kunitz. Indian Drinking: Navajo
Practices and Anglo- American Theories. New York, John Wiley &
Sons, 1974.
Levy, Jerrold E. and Stephen J. Kunitz. "Indian Drinking: Prob-
lems of Data Collection and Interpretation." M. Chafetz, ed. Pro-
ceedings, 1st Annual Alcoholism Conference of NIAAA
(1971) : 217-236.
Littman, Gerard. "Alcoholism, Illness, and Social Pathology Among
American Indians in Transition." Journal of Public Health., Vol. 60
(1970).
Littman, Gerard. SoTne Ohservations on Drinking Among American
Indians in Chicago. Paper presented at 27th International Congress
on Alcohol and Alcoholism on Sept. 6, 1964.
Pinto, Leonard J. "Alcohol and Drug Abuse Among Native American
Youth on Reservations: A Growing Crisis." National Commn. on
Marijuana and Drug Abuse, Drug Use In America: Problem in
Perspective^ Vol. 1.
Pliner, Patricia and Howard Cappel. "Modification of Affective Con-
sequences of Alcohol : A Comparison of Social and Solitary Drink-
ing." Journal of Abnormal Psychology., Vol. 83 (1974) : 418-425.
Porter, Margaret E., Theodore A. Vieira and Gary J. Kaplan. "Drug
Use in Anchorage, Alaska : A Survey of 15,634 Students in Grades
6-12." J(mmal of the AM A, Vol. 223 (1973) : 657-664.
Savard, Robert Joseph. Cultural Stress and Alcoholism: A Study of
Their Relationship Among Nomajo Alcoholic Men. Univ. of Min-
nesota, Ph.D. Thesis, 1968, social work. University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor. (Microfilm #69-1532).
Schaefer, Richard T. White Lightning and the Redmen: American
Indian Arrest Rates for Alcohol-Related Offenses. Paper presented
to the Department of Sociology, Western Illinois Univ., May, 1973.
Sievers, Maurice L. "Cigarette and Alcohol Usage by Southwestern
American Indians." American Journal of Puhlic Healthy Vol. 58
(1968): 71-82.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health
Service, Task Force on Alcoholism. Alcoholism: A High Priority
Health Problem. Section One, Dec, 1969; Section Two, Feb., 1970;
Section Three, Apr., 1970.
U.S. Department of Health, Education^ and Welfare, National Insti-
tute of Mental Health. Suicide, Homicide and Alcoholism Among
American Indians: Guidelines for Help. Rockville, Md. (1973).
Westermeyer, Joseph and Gretchen Lang "Ethnic Differences in Use
of Alcoholism Facilities." International Journal of the Addictions,
Vol. 10 (1975): 513-520.
"Whittaker, James O. "Alcohol and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe II.
Psychodynamics and Cultural Factors in Drinking." Quarterly
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 24 (1963) : 80-90.
Medical
DeCarli, Leonore and Charles S. Liebar. "Fatty Liver in the Rat
After Prolonged Intake of Ethanol With a Nutritionally Adequate
New Liquid Diet." Journal of Nutrition (1967) .
Jolliffee, Norman and E. Morton Jellinek. "Vitamin Deficiencies and
Liver Cirrhosis in Alcoholism." Quarterly Journal af Studies on
Alcohol, (Dec., 1941) : 544^583.
Kunitz, S. J., J. E. Levy and M. Everett. "Alcoholic Cirrhosis Among
the Navajo." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 30
(1969).
Siegel, Harvey H. Alcohol Detoxification Programs. Springfield, 111.
Thomas, 1973.
Westermeyer, Joseph J. Alcohol Related Problems Among Ojihway
People in Minnesota: A Social Psychiatry Study. Univ. of Min-
nesota, 1970, Health Sciences. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,
(Microfilm #71-18,837).
Peyote
Albaugh, Bernard J. and Philip O. Anderson. "Peyote in the Treat-
ment of Alcoholism Among American Indians." AmeHcam, Journal
of Psychiatry, Yo\. 131 (1974) : 1247-1249.
Brand, Stewart. "Indians and the Counter-Culture." Clear Creek,
Vol. 18 (1972): 34-37.
Simmons, Benjamin F. "Implications of Court Decisions on Peyote
for the Users of LSD." A Journal of Church and State, VoJ. XI
(1969): 83-91.
Slotkin, J. S. The Peyote Religion. New York, Octagon, 1975.
ALLOTMENT
Fritz, Henry. The Movonent for Indian Assimilation. Philadelphia,
Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1963.
Gates, Paul W. Fifty Million Acres: Conflicts Over Kansas Zand
Policy 18S4-1890. New York, Atherton Press, 1966.
50
Otis, Delos Sacket. The Dawes Act and the Allotment of Irvdian
Lamds. Norman, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1973.
Priest, Loring Benson. "The Congressional Decision to Use Force,"
The Western Americam, India7i, Richard Ellis, ed., Univ. of Ne-
braska Press, 1972.
Schurz, Carl. "Present Aspects of the Indian Problem." The North
Americam, Review, No. 296 (July, 1881) : 1-24.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Indian Affairs. Lands in Sever-
alty to Indians. Report No. 1576, 46th Cong., 2d Sess. Washington,
May 28, 1880.
U.S. Congress. House. Report of the Joint Committee Appointed to
Consider the Expediency of Transferring the Indian Bureau to the
War Department. Report No. 93, 45th Cong., 2d Sess. Washington,
1879.
Dissenting Report. Report No. 93, 45th Cong., 2d Sess. Wash-
ington, 1879.
BUDGET
U.S. Community Service Admin., Div. of State and Local Govern-
ment, Office of Operations. Federal Outlays in {each State) Fiscal
Year 1975. 50 Vols. Compiled for the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent, Washington, 1976.
. Fiscal Year 1976. Washington, 1977.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The Budget of the United
States Government Fiscal Year 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1974.
. Fiscal Year 1976. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
General
U.S. Deartment of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. American
Indian and the Federal Relationship. Mar., 1972.
■. BIA Manual of Operations. 25 Vol.
. Career Development Opportunities for Native Americans.
Washington, 1975. 56 pp.
-. Estimates of Indian Population Served hy the Bureau of
Affairs: September, 1968. Prepared by Office of Program Coordina-
tion. Washington (unpublished) , Mar., 1969.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch
of Education. Basic Needs of Indian People, Special Report,
June, 1957. Washington, 1957.
51
Akea Offices
Navajo Tribe, Office of the Chairman. Issue Papers Prepared hy the
Office of the Chairman, Navajo Tribe for the Bureau of Indian Af-
fairs Management Review of the Navajo Area. Vol. I — Narrative;
Vol. II — Documentation. Aug., 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
Executive Review of eastern area program management capahility,
executive representation, technical assistance capacity and eastern
area tribal requirements, Washington, (mimeo), Aug., 1975. 35 pp.
Budget
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Budget
Justifications, fiscal year 1976. Washington, 1975. 143 pp.
Budget Justifications, fiscal year 1977. Washington, 1976.
121 pp.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Natural Resources Division.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs Budget Preparation Process.
(mimeo), July, 1975. 189 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Report on Financial Mancbgemervt
and Program Information Systems. Prepared by Arthur AnderSbn
and Co. (D.O.I. Contract No. 14-01-001-1424) Washington, June,
1972. 250 pp.
Education
Arizona, Department of Education, Division of Indian Education.
1975-1976 Arizona Peripheral Dormitory Program, Flagstaff, Hol-
brook, Snowflake, Winslow. Phoenix, 1976.
Navajo Educational Survey. Prepared by Comprenetics, Inc. (B.I. A.
Contract #N00-C-1420-6279). Beverly Hills, Calif., June, 1975.
163 pp.
Henninger, D. and N. Esposito. "Regimented Non-Education Indian
Schools." The New Republic. (Feb. 15, 1969).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Control
of Indian Education in BIA /Schools: Presidential/Secretarial
Objectives for Secretarial Operational Planning System. (Research
and Evaluation Report Series No. 29) Washington, May, 1974. 22 pp.
. Control of Indian Education in BIA Schools: A Progress
Report. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 29.01) Wash-
ington, Aug., 1974.
Control of Indian Education in BIA ScJwols: A Progress
Report. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 29.02) Wash-
ington, Sept., 1974. 9 pp.
52
. Gordrol of Indian Education in BIA Schools: A Progress
Report. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 29.04) Wash-
ington, Feb., 1975. 33 pp.
. Control of Indian Education in BIA Schools: A Progress
Report. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 29.06) Wash-
ington, July /Aug., 1975. 17 pp.
-. Control of Indian Education in BIA Schools: A Progress
Report on the Presidential/ Secretarial Objective. (Research and
Evaluation Report Series No. 29.03) Washington, Oct./Nov., 1974.
29 pp.
. Doorway toward the light; the story of the special Navajo
edu/}ation program. Prepared by L. Madison Coombs. Washington,
1962.
-. Fiscal Year 1977 Statistics Concerning Indian Education.
Washington, 1971. 34 pp.
-. N ondiscrimin/itory Educational Assessment of Native Ameri-
cans Proposed Rules and Regulations. Washington, Jan., 1976. 18 pp.
. Off -Reservation Boarding School Project. (Research and
Evaluation Report No. 11) Washington, Aug., 1972. 21 pp.
. The preparation of B.I. A. teacher and dormitory aides. Pre-
pared by AVCO Economic Systems Corp. 3 Vols. Washington, Apr.,
1973.
. Special Education Guidelines. Washington, 1972. 34 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian
Education Resources Center. Chief Area Office Education Officers
Quarterly Conference held at Las Vegas, Nev., October IJ1.-I6, 1975.
(Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 34.02) Albuquerque,
Jan. 1976. 93 pp.
-. Educational Needs Assessment in the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(Research and Evaluation Report No. 9) Albuquerque, June 1972.
22 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo
Area Office. Directives for Implementation of Educational Policy
and Practices in Navajo Area Elementary Schools. Mar. 1973. 49 pp.
. Report on Assessment of Pupil Performance 197 3-19^ Jf. School
Year. Window Rock, Ariz., Dec, 1974. 48 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of
Indian Education. Fiscal Year 1975 Statistics Concerning Indian
Education. Lawrence, Kans., Haskell Indian Junior College Pub-
lication Service, 1976.
\
53
History
Brookings Institution, Institute for Government Research. The
Problem of Indian Administration. (The Meriam Report) Wash-
ington, D.C., 1928. Reprinted. New York, Johnson Reprint Corp.,
1971.
Freeman, J. Leiper, Jr. The New Deal for Indians: A Study in
Bureau-G ommiittee Relations in American Government. Disserta-
tion, Ann Arbor, Xerox University, Microfilm, 1952.
Indian Affairs: A Report to the Congress hy the Commission on the
Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. (The
Hoover Report) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1949. 800 pp.
Schmeckebier, Lawrence, F. The Office of Indian Affairs: Its His-
tory^ Activities and Organization. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins
Press, 1972.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Management Review and Appraised
System. 4 Vols. Prepared by Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Consult-
ants. Washington, Nov. 15, 1950.
Report to the Secretary of the Interior hy the Task Force on
Indian Affairs. Washington, July 10, 1961.
U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Committee of
One Hundred on Indian Affairs. The Indian Prohlem. Washing-
ton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1924.
Zimmerman, W., Jr. "The Role of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Since 1933." Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Sciencesj^o.^ll (1957).
Legislation
U.S. Congress. S. 1816 and H.R. 10560 (bills). Indian Resources
Development Act of 19&7. 90th Cong.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Legis-
lative Program., Second Session, 94th Congress. Memorandum to
Central Office Directors and Area Directors from Ralph Reeser,
Congressional and Legislative Affairs staff. Washington, Oct. 2,
1975.
-. Letter to Presiding Officers of All Governing Bodies about
reservation programs and proposed legislation. Mar. 21, 1967.
Management
U.S. Civil Service Commission, Atlanta Region. Special Inquiry at
Cherokee Indian Agency, Department of Interior, Cherokee, North
Carolina, July 29, 30, 21, 191! U. Atlanta, 1974.
54
U.S. Civil Service Commission, Bureau of Personnel Management
Evaluation. A Report on Haskell Indian Junior College, Lawrence,
Kansas. Nov., 19Y4. Washington, 1974.
U.S. Civil Service Commission, Chicago Kegion Office. Personnel
Management Evaluation at Bureau of Indian Affairs, Minneapolis
Area Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Jan. 20-25, 1975. 11 pp.
U.S. Civil Service Commission, Dallas Region Office. Personnel Man-
agement at Bureau of Indian Affairs Area Office, Albuquerque, New
Mexico. Mar., 1975.
Personnel Management at Navajo Area Office, Bureau of In-
dian Affairs, Gallup, N. Mex. May, 1975.
-. Personnel Management at Bureau of Indian Affairs, Musko-
gee, Oklahoma. Oct., 1975. 39 pp.
U.S. Civil Services Commission, Denver Region Office. Evaluation of
Personnel Management at the Uintah and Ouray Agency, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Ft. Duchesne, Utah. Oct. 15-18, 1974-.
-. A Report on Intermountain School Bureau of Indian Affairs,
BHgham City, Utah. Pel. 28-Mar. 10, 1972.
U.S. Civil Service Commission, Seattle Region. A Report on Equal
Employment Opportunity and Labor Management Relations
Chemawa Indian School, Salem, Oreg. Feb. 24-28, 1976. 17 pp.
Organization and Reorganization
National Congress of American Indians. Federal/ Indian Policy and
B.I.A. Realignment. Washington, Fall. 1974.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Sub-Task Force on Native
Self -Determination. Crane Report on an Independent Agency, 1971.
Washington, D.C., 1971.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Bureau of
Indian Affairs Central Office Realignment. Memorandum from the
Asst. to the Secretary-Indian Affairs, Marvin L. Franklin, Wash-
ington, Apr. 10, 1973. 75 pp.
-. Management Review of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. (The
Preston Report) Washington, May 27, 1971. 76 pp.
Programs
Clinton, Lawrence, Bruce A. Chadwick and Howard M. Bahr. "Voca-
tional Training for Indian Migrants Correlates of 'Success' in a
Federal Program." Human Organization, Vol. 32 (Spring, 1973) :
17-27.
55
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Your Right to Indian Welfare: A
Handbook on the BIA General Assistance Program (Clearinghouse
Publication No. 45). Washington, Dec, 1973. 49 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. A Follow-Up Study of 1963 Recipi-
ents of the Services of the Employment Assistance Program, Bu-
reau of Indian Affairs, Washington, Oct., 1966. 53 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian
Action Team Program. Washington, Dec, 1974. 9 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Chicago
Field Employer Assistance Office. Annual Report 1968-1969. Chi-
cago, III., 1969.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division
of Credit and Financing. Annual Credit Report. Washington, 1972.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division
of Law Enforcement Service. Indian Reservation Criminal Justice:
Task Force Analysis, 197Jr-19^5. Washington, 1975. 135 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Ed-
ucation Resources Center. Relocation of the Roswell Employemnt
Training Center Indian Police Academy. Albuquerque, Dec, 19^2.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Audit and Investigation.
Review of the Indian Action Team Program, Bureau of Indian Af-
fairs. Washington, Nov., 1975. 35 pp.
CHILD WELFARE
Farris, Charles E. and Lorene S. "Indian Children : The Struggle for
Survival." Social Work, Vol. 21 (Sept. 1976) : 386-389.
Kadustrin, Alfred. Child Welfare Services. (2d. ed.) New York,Mac-
millan Co., 1974.
Unger, Steven, ed. The Destruction of American Indian Families. New
York, Assoc on American Indian Affairs, 1977. 90 pp.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social and Re-
habilitation Service. Legal and Jurisdictional Problems in the De-
livery of SRS Child Welfare Services on Indian Reservations, (un-
published) . Prepared by Center for Social Research and Develop-
ment, Univ. of Denver, Oct., 1975. 102 pp.
Wallace, Helen M. "The Health of American Indian Children : A Sur-
vey of Current Problems and Needs." Clinical Pediatrics, (Feb..
1973) : 83-87.
56
COMMERCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
Battelle Memorial Institute. Field Reports and Final Evaluation of
Economic Development Administration Planning Grants. Washing-
ton, May, 1970.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administra-
tion. Annual Reports {1971 through 197 U). Washington.
-. Evaluation of Impact of T ourism/ Recreational Projects for
EcorwmiG Development Administration. 3 Vols. (National Tech-
nical Information Service COM-73-11697). Prepared by Centaur
Management Consultants, Inc., Washington, June, 1973.
-. An Evaluation of the Public Works Impact Program: Final
Report. Jan., 1975.
-. Indian Economic Development: An Evaluation of ED Ah Se-
lected Indian Reservation Program. 2 Vols. Washington, July, 1972.
-. Indian Industrial Parks Funded hy EDA. Washington, Sept.,
1975.
. Indian Planning Grant Study. May, 1975. 60 pp.
. Qualified Areas Under the Public Works and Economic De-
velopment Act of 1965 As Amended. Washington, Aug. 15, 1975. 82
pp.
. Results of a Partnership Between the American Indian and the
Economic Development Administration. Washington, June 30, 1975.
101 pp.
Results of a Partnership Between the American Indian amd
the EDA. Aug., ld7S.
-. Summary of Case Studies: Evaluation of EDA Rural Devel-
opment Activities in 16 Areas. Washington, 1970, 43 pp.
-.An Updated Evaluation of EDA Funded Industrial Parks.,
1968-197^. June, 1974.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Minority Business Enter-
prise. Higher Education Aid for Minority Business. Washington,
1970.
-. OMBE Funded Organizations Directory. Washington, Jan. 1,
1976. 48 pp.
-. Policy and Program Recorwmendations and Delivery Mecha-
nism Design for Federal Strategy to Reach and Aid Business Devel-
opment on Ame.rican Indian Reservations., Final Report., Initial
Draft. Prepared by Frank Martinez, First American Management
Systems, Dallas, Tex., 1974, 73 pp.
57 -
. A Proposal to Plan and Implement an Indian Business Pro-
gram Based on the Fiscal Year 1972 Supplemental Appropriation.
Prepared by Cresap, McOormick and Paget, Inc., Dec. 3, 1971.
U.S. President, 1969-1974 (Nixon) . Executive Order No. 11625. Wash-
ington, Oct. 13, 1971. Authorization for OMBE.
Executive Order No. 11458. Washington, Mar. 5, 1969. Creat-
ing OMBE.
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, U.S.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Civil Rights of Americam,
Indiam. (Clearinghouse Publication No. 35) Washington, Apr.,
1972.
. Employment, Housing and Justice. Washington, 1961. 400 pp.
. Employment of American Indiwns in New Mexico and Ari-
zona. Washington, Nov., 1972. 200 pp.
. Hearing Held in Window Roch, Arizona, Oct. 22-U, 1973.
Vol. 1 : Testimony ; Vol. II : Exhibits. Washington, 1973.
-. The Nawajo Nation: An American Colony; A Report. Wash-
ington, 1975. 144 pp.
-. Report of Investigation: Oglala Sioux Tribe, General Elec-
tion, 197 A. Washington, Oct., 1974. 28 pp.
. The Southwest Indiam, Report. Washington, May, 1973.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Arizona Advisory Committee.
Indian Employment in Arizona. Washington, D.C., Feb., 1975.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Indiana Advisory Committee.
Indiana Migrants: Blighted Hopes, Slighted Rights. Washington,
Mar., 1975.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Montana— North Dakota— South
Dakota Joint Advisory Committee. Indian Civil Rights Issues in
Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Washington, Aug.,
1974.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Nebraska Advisory Committee.
Nebraska^ Official Civil Rights Agencies. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1975. 101 pp.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, New Mexico Advisory Committee.
The Farmington Report: A Conflict of Cultures. Washington, July,
1975. 171 pp.
68
CREDIT AND LOANS
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Annual
Credit and Financing Report. Four reports: 1969 through 1972.
Washington.
U.S._ Department of the Interior. Office of the Secretary. Provisions in
tribal coTistitutions regarding mortgaging of tribal lands. Letter to
Senator Abourezk. June 25, 1973.
U.S. Laws, Statutes. Indian Financing Act of 197 Jf.. Approved Apr. 12,
1974, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (Public Law 93-262, 88 Stat. 77) Wash-
ington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974.
CRIME AND CRIMINAL LAW
Bureau of Social Science Research. "Comparative Parole Treatment
of American Indian and non-Indian Inmates of the U.S. Federal
Prisons, Fiscal Years 1973 and 1974." Prepared by Byron Swift
and Gary Bickel. Papers on Poverty and Law. (Mimeo) Washing-
ton, Dec, 1974. 24 pp.
Conn, Stephen and Arthur E. Hippler. Final Report — Ermnonak Con-
ciliation Board., a Model for a New Legal Process for Small Villages
in Alaska. Univ. of Alaska, Institute of Social, Economic and Gov-
ernment Research, 1974.
Hippler, Arthur E. and Stephen Conn. "Traditional Athabascan Law
Ways and Their Relationship to Contemporary Problems of 'Bush
Justice'; Some Preliminary Observations on Structure and Func-
tion." Occasional Papers., Univ. of Alaska, Institute of Social, Eco-
nomic and Government Research, 1972. 17 pp.
Minnesota, Office of the Governor. Govemor''s Commission on Crirae
Prevention and Control, 1976 Comprehensive Plan. Minneapolis,
1976.
National American Indian Court Judges Association. Justice and the
American Indian, Vol. 3: The Effect of Having No Extradition
Procedures for Indian Reservations; Vol. 4: Examination of the
Basis of Tribal Law and Order; Vol. 5: Federal Prosecution of
Crimes Committed on Indian Reservations. Washington, 1974.
Native American Rights Fund, the Indian Corrections Projects.
Alternatives to Incarceration: A Report on the Swiftbird Correc-
tions Center. Boulder, June 30, 1976.
Stratton, John. "Cops and Drunks : Police Attitudes and Actions m
Dealing with Indian Drunks." International Journal of the Addic-
tions, Vol. 8 (1973) : 613-621
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Arizona Advisory Committee.
Adult Corrections in Arizona. Washington, Dec, 1974. 189 pp.
59
U.S. Congress. Senate. S. 1 — . A bill to codify, revise, and refonn title
18 of the United States Code. 94th Congress, 1st Session. Washing-
ton. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division
of Law Enforcement. Indian Law Enforcement Histoinj. Wash-
ington, 1975.
I U.S. Department of Justice. Statement of Roger Pauley, Deputy
Chief, Legislation and Special Projects Section, Criminal Division
before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives concerning S. 2129 and related
bills. Mar. 10, 1976.
[U.S. National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws.
Final Report : A Proposed New Federal Criminal Code. Washing-
ton. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971.
^Von Hentig, Hans. "The Delinquency of the American Indian."
American Journal of Police Scien/ie (1945) : 75-84.
DEMOGRAPHY
(U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: 1970. Vol. 1, Char-
acteristics of the Population. U.S. Summary. PC(1)-B1 Washing-*
ton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 366 pp.
1970. Subject report; American Indians. PC (2) -IF. U.S.
Govt. Print. Off. 1973. 192 pp.
-. 1970 Subject report; Housing of selected racial groups. HO
(7) -9. Washington. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 132 pp.
-. 1970 TFe, the First Americans. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off. 19 pp.
. 1970. Unpublished data. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Report prepared for the U.S. Congress
American Indian Policy Review Commission: Task Force on
Terminated and Non- Federally Recognized Indians. Population.,
Education and Socio-Economic Data for Counties with JfiO'^r
Indians. 1976.
-. Report prepared for the U.S. Congress American Indian
Policy Review Commission: Task Force on Terminated and Non-
Federally Recognized Indians. Tribe by County : Population Data
for Counties with S5+ Indians, 1976.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of tlie
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evalution, Office of Special
Concerns. A study of Selected Socio-Economic Characteristics of
03-440—78 5
60
Ethnic Mhiorities Based cm the 1970 Census. Volume III : Amer-
ican Indiana. (HEW Publication, No. (OS) 75-122) Prepared by
Urban Assoc, Inc., Washington, July 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Estimates
of resident Indian population and labor force status, hy State and
reservation. Mar., 1973. 19 pp.
-. The States and their Indian Citizens. By Theodore W. Taylor.
Washington, 1972. 307 pp.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
General
Barsh, Russel L. "Corporations and Indians: Who's the Villain?"
MBA, Vol. 46 (June, 1975) : 11-13.
Development Finance Companies, Aspects of Policy and Operation.
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968.
Friedman, Wolfgang G. and George Kalmanoff, (eds.) Joint Inter-
national Business Ventures. New York, Columbia Univ. Press, 1961.
Gillmor, Frances and Louisa W. Wetherill. Traders to the Navajo,
The Story of the Wetherhills of Kayenta. Albuquerque, Univ. of
New Mexico Press. 1967. 271 pp.
Jeanneau, Joseph A. Band Development Training Program Facilita-
tor''s Manual. Prince Albert, Sask, Canada, Training Research and
Development Station, 1975; 5 Vols.: Vol. 1. Introduction to the
Training Program ; Vol, 2. Problem Solving and Communication ;
Vol. 3. Understanding Government ; Vol. 4. Economic Development
Process ; Vol. 5. Economic Development Process.
Lee, Richard. "Tourism and the American Indian Nation." Travel
Trade Magazine (July 23, 1973) .
Lewis, William Arthur. Development Planning, the Essentials of
Economic Policy. New York, Harper & Row, 1966.
McNih, Frank. The Indian Traders. Norman, Univ. of Oklahoma
Press, 1972. 393 pp.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Develop-
ment Co-operation: Efforts and Policies of the Members of the De-
velopment Assistance Committee, 197 If. Review. Paris, France, Nov.
1974. 325 pp.
Plananalysis, Inc. and Sterling Institute. Model Tribal Program Man-
agement System. Encino, Calif., 1976.
61
Scliaab, J. "Indian Industrial Development and the Courts." Natural
Resources Journal^ Vol. 8 (1968) : 303
Sneistrap, Paul Peter. The Economy of Greenland. Copenhagen, Den-
mark, C. A. Reitsel, 1967.
Snodgrass, Marjorie P. Economic Development of American Indians
and Eskimos 1930 Through 191^7. Washington, U.S. Bureau of
Indian Affairs. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1968.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Office of Planning and Development.
Review Commentary on DMB^s Interagency Staff Study Report on
Federal Field Organization for Indian Programs. Fort Yates, N.
Dak. Mar. 7, 1973. 76 pp.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization. 1968 Manual on
the Use of Consultants in Developing Countries. United Nations
Sales No. E.68II.B.10, New York.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rural Development^ Financial and
Technical Assistance Provided hy the Departnnent of Agriculture
and the Department of Ilousimg and TJrhan Development for Non-
metropolitan Planning Districts in Fiscal Year 1975., Sixth Annual
\ Report to the Congress. Washington., 1975. 108 pp.
lU.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Serv'ice. Rural
5 Development : Fifth Annual Report of the President to the Con-
I gress on Government Services to Rural America. Washington, 1974.
. Guide to Federal Programs for Rural Development. Washing-
ton, 1973. 262 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administra-
I tion. Buyers Guide to Products Manufactured on American Indian
i Reservations. Washington.
'U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indians Affairs, Division
of Indian Business Enterprises. List of Representative Manufactur-
ing Enterprises Located on or Near Indian Reservations. Wash-
ington.
I U.S. Federal Power Commission, 1970 National Power Survey. Wash-
; ington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1970
LT.S. Federal Trade Commission. Los Angeles Regional Office. System
on the Navajo Reservation. June, 1973.
U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. American Indian Business Di-
rectory : A Working Handhook. (OEO pamphlet 6164-3) Washing-
ton, 1972.
62
Special Studies
Arizona, Commission on Indian Affairs. Survey of the Havasupai
Reservation. Phoenix.
Arizona, Department of Economic Planning and Development.
Arizona India/m Demogra'phic Data: Needs and Recowmendations.
Prepared by Benjamin Taylor. Phoenix, 1971.
Bean, Lowell John. Morongo Indian Reservation : A Century of Adap-
tive Strategies. Washington, D.C., Center for the Study of Man,
Smithsonian Institution, July, 1974.
Deloria, Vine, Jr. The Lummi Indian Coinmunity: The Fishermen
of the Pacific Northwest. Washington, D.C., Center for the Study
of Man, Smithsonian Institution, 1975.
Dana Larson Eoubel & Assoc. Irrigation Feasibility Study Crow
Creek: Tribal Fann: Engineering Report 1975. (Unpublished).
Crow Creek Keservation, S. Dak. 1975. 41 pp.
DeMallie, R. The Pine Ridge Economy: Cultural and Historical Per-
spectives. Washington, D.C., Center for the Study of Man, Smith-
sonian Institution, 1975.
Doyon, Limited. Arwmal Report: 1973. Fairbanks, Doyon, Ltd., 1973.
Gilbreath, Kent. "Business Development on the Navajo Reservation."
New Mexico Business, Vol. 25 (Mar. 1972) : 3-10.
Jones, Dorothy M. Patterns of Village Growth and Decline in the
Aleutians. Fairbanks, Institute of Social Economic and Govem-
Kolstad, C. D., D. P. Grimmer, P. Reno and J. M. Tutt. Appropriate
Technology and Economic Development. U.S. Energy Research
and Development, Admin. Contract No. W-7405-Eng. 36, Los
Alamos, N. Mex,, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory of the Univ. of
California, Oct. 1976. 13 pp.
Manuel, M., J. Ramon and B. Font ana. Dressing for the Window:
Papago Indians and Economic Development. Washington, D.C.,
Center for the Study of Man, Smithsonian Institution, 1975.
Marshall, Kaplan, Gans and Kahn. Oglala Sioux Model Reservation
Program. 12 Vols. San Francisco, Marshall, Kaplan, Gans and
Kahn, 1969.
Michael, Robert Elias. The Economic Problems of the Rio Grande
Pueblos. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, American Studies,
Univ. of New Mexico, May, 1976. 290 pp.
63
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. Accelerated Progress Through
Self -Determmaf ion : Second Annual Report of the Choctaw Self-
Determination Project^ July 1, 1972-0 ct. 31^ 1973. Philadelphia,
Miss., 1973. 59 pp.
'Multi-Housing and Management Systems, Inc. The S.E.R.A.T.E.
Report: An Action Plan for the Standing Rock Sioux. Nashville,
Mar. 18, 1975.
"Tlie Navajos: High, Dry and Penniless." The Nation 220 (Mar. 29,
1975) : 359-63.
Pueblo of Laguna. Puehlo of Laguna Corrwmmity, Economic and
Capital Impro^'enients Prograin. Laguna, N. Mex. 1974.
Reno, P. and B. Bahe. "Navajo Indian Economic Planning: The Nav-
ajo Indian Irrigation Project." '•'•Neio Mexico Bushiess., Vol. 26
(Nov. 1973) : 3-12.
I Ruffing, Lorraine. Economic Development and- Navajo Social Struc-
tu.re. Washington, D.C. Center for the Study of Man, Smithsonian
Institution, 1975.
-. "Navajo Economic Development Subject to Cultural Con-
straints." Economic Development and Cultural Change., Vol. 24
(April, 1976) : 611-621.
'Sealaska Corporation. Juneau, Sealaska Corp., 1972.
■Stevens, Susan M. Passamaquoddy Economic Development in Cul-
tural and Historical Perspective. Washington, D.C. Center for the
Study of Man, Smithsonian Institution, 1973. 162 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administra-
tion. Forest Products Complexes for Processing Timber From the
Colville Indian Reservation and Ferry County., Washington. Pre-
pared by Bovay Engineers, Inc., Washington, June, 1965.
-. Feasibility Study of an Industrial Park on the San Carlos
Apache Indian Reservation., Arizona. Prepared by L. H. Bell &
Assoc. Washington, Nov. 1967.
. Architectural and Engineering Review Report: Firehawk
Recreational Commercial Complex^ Rosebud Siouo' Reservation.,
S. Dak. Prepared by Walter Butler Co. Washington, Dec. 6, 1968.
. Rosehud Sioux Industrial Development Project. Prepared by
Kirschner Assoc. Inc., (EDA Contract No. 8-35136) Washington
D.C, Feb. 1969.
. Crow Reservation Tourism Facilities. Washington, 1972.
64
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Plamm.hig for
the Umatilla Indian Reservation: Initial Comprehensive Planning
Investigation. Prepared by C. Hill. (HUD Contract Grant No.
CPA-OR-1 0-1 6-1006) Pendleton, Oreg. Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla, Dec. 1973.
Pinenut Allotments: A Study in Developmental Policy Plan-
ning. Prepared by Murray-McCormick Environmental Group of
Nevada. (HUD Project No. CPA-NV-90-39-1007(H)) Stewart,
Nev., Washoe Nation Tribal Council, July, 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs Manage-
ment of the Initial Installation of System Developed for the Black-
feet and Fort Belknap Indian Reservations., Montana. Prepared by
Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. (Contract No. (50 C14
204403) Billings, Mont., Sept. 10, 1973.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Planning
Support Group. The Sisseton Reservation Area: Its Resources aiid.
Development Potential. (BIA Office of Planning, Report No. 204)
Billings, Mont. Nov. 1972.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Zuni
Indian Reservation: Its Resources and Development Potential.
(Planning Support Group, Report No. 207 Billings, Mont. 1973.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Tourism
Development. Tourism Development Plan for Seminole Tribe of
Florida. Denver, Mar. 1974. 69 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Multi-
mode Transportation and Utility Corridor Systems in Alaska: A
Preliminary., Conceptual Analysis. Washington, Oct. 1974. 77 pp.
Utah, Office of the State Planning Coordinator. The Navajo Econom-
ic-Demographic Model. Prepared by Ross Reeve, Rodger Weaver,
Eric Natwig. Salt Lake City, 1975.
. The Navajo Economic-Demographic Model: NED A Method
for Forecasting and Evaluating Alternative Navajo Economic
Futures., User'^s Guide. Prepared by Bruce M. Stowell. Salt Lake
City, Jan. 1976. 47 pp.
Tribal Development Plans
Brady, Consultants, Inc. Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation Compre-
hensive Planning Report. Spearfish, S. Dak. Sept. 1973. 217 pp.
Colville Confederated Tribes. Overall Economic Development Plan.
1975-76. Nespelem, W^ash. 1975.
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Planning Board. Comprehensive
Plan., Vol. /, Population and. Economy Study. (HUD Contract No.
CPA-NC-04-19-1035) Cherokee, N.C., July 22, 1974.
65
Hoopa Valley Business Council. Overall Economic Development Plan
71^ : Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. Hoopa, Calif. 1974.
Oneida Nation. 701 Comprehensive Planning Program — Oneida In-
dian Reservation. Prepared by Oneida 701 Planning Staff. Green
Bay, Wis.
Shoshone and Arapahoe Tribes, Wind River Economic Development
Planning Program. Wind River Reservation. Wyo. July 30, 1975.
Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc. Swlnomish Comprehensive Plan.
2 Vols. Seattle, Wash. Feb. 1972.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administra-
tion. Program for Economic Development: Umatilla Indian Res-
ervation., Pendleton, Oreg. Prepared by Ernst & Ernst, Washing-
ton, D.C. Oct. 1969.
. Economic Study and Plan: Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Prepared by Economic Research Assoc. Washington, D.C, Apr.
1973. 200 pp.
. 197Ji.-1978 Revised Overall Economic Development Program:
Warm Springs Reservation. (EDA Project No. 07-05-15016) Wash-
ington, D.C, Apr. 1974.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. General Plan :
Duck Valley Indian Reservation. Prepared by Environmental Con-
cerns, Inc., Owyhee, Nev. Duck Valley Indian Tribal Office, July,
1972. 91 pp.
Washoe Nation General Plan. Prepared by Murray-McCor-
mick Enviromnental Group of Nevada. (HUD Project No. CPA-
NV-09-39-1000) Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Te<Jh-
nical Information, Washington, D.C, Dec. 1973.
-, Overall Economic Developtnent Plan for the Chippewa Lac
du Flambeau Bamd. Lac du Flambeau Reservation. Prepared by
Arie Dewaal, Washington, June, 1974. 102 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Havasupai
Plan: Tlie Secretarial Land Use Plam. for the Addition to the
Havasupai Indian Reservation. Phoenix, Mar. 12, 1976.
EDUCATION
General
Adams, Evelyn. American Indian Education: Government Schools
and Econonm'ic Progress. American Education Series, No. 2. 1946
Reprinted. New York, Arno Press, 1972.
Anderson, Hovson D. and Walter C Ellis. Alaska Natives: A Survey
of Their Educational Status. 1935 Reprinted. New York, Kraus Re-
print Co., 1971.
66
Arizona Depai-tinent of Education. Arizona School Law Index^ Phoe-
nix, 1974.
Bass, W. An Analysis of Academic Acliievement of Indian High
School Students in Federal and Public Schools^ A Progress Report.
Albuquerque, Southwestern Cooperative Educational Laboratory,
1969.
Blanch, Lloyd PI Educational Services for Irulians. Prepared for the
Advisoi-y Committee on Education. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Oif., 1939.
Blunie, Paul. An Evaluation of Institutional Vocational Tralrung
Received hy American Indians through the Muskogee Oklahoma
Area Office of the BIA. Stillwater, Oklahonm State Univ., 1968.
Cavender, Chris. An Unbalanced Perspective: Two Minnesota Text-
hooks Examined hy An American Indian. Minneapolis, Training
Center for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, Sept. 1970.
21pp.
Coombs, L. The Educational Disadvantage of the Indian American
Student. (E.R.I.C.-ORESS, Las Cruces, New Mexico Keprinting
Service.) Albuquerque, New Mexico State Univ.
Dine Blsaad Naniliih Navajo Language Review. Arlington, Va. Cen-
ter for Applied Linguistics.
Forbes, J. Calif omia Indian Educatwn., Rejyort of the First All-
Indian Stateioide Conference on California Indian Education. Be-
thesda, Md. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, 1967.
Fuohs, Estelle Krause, R. Havighurst, and Ziegler. Teachers for
American Indian Youth and Cwyficuluin for AmeHcan Indian
Youth. Minneapolis, Training Center for Couinmnity Programs,
Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
Fuchs, Estelle, MacGregor and Aurbach. The Status of AmeHcan In-
dian Education. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Pro-
grams, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
Fuchs, Estelle and Robert. Havighurst. To Live on This Earth : Ameri-
can Indian Education. Garden City, N.J., Doubleday.
Hackbert, Peter H. First Interim Report on Adult Indian Literary
and Educational Attainment in Oklahoma. Norman, Okla. Ameri-
can Indian Institute, Nov. 1975. 45 pp.
Hammond, Karon Sherarts, R. Woods and A. Harkins. Junior High
Indian Children in Minneapolis : A Study of One Problem School.
Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Programs, Univ. of
Minnesota, 1970.
67
Hanson, Lorie, Arthur Harkins, Karon Siherarts and Richard Woods.
Suburban School Children ami American Indians: A Survey of Im-
pressions. JMinneapolis, Training Center for Coninmnity Programs,
Univ. of Minnesota, May, 1970. 49 pp.
Harkins, Arthur, Karon Sherarts and Richard Woods. The Formal
Educatiooi of Menominee Indian Children: Sociocultural amd Socio-
economic Background Factors. Minneapolis, Training Center for
Comniunity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
. Indian Education in Min/rieapolis: An Interim, Report. Minne-
apolis, Training Center for Comnnmity Programs, Univ. of Minne-
sota, Dec. 1969. 35 pp.
Havighurst, Robert and Birchard. Boarding Schools for Indian
Youth and tlie Design, of the National Study: Sampling^ histru-
ments and Field Research Methods. Minneapolis, Training Center
for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
Idaho, Department of Education. Indian Education Annual Report
1971^-1975. Boise, 1975. 35 pp.
Indian Students and Guidance. (Guidance Monograph Series) Bos-
ton, Houghton Mifflin, 1971.
Jones, Louis T. Amerindian Education. San Antonio, Naylor Co.,
1972.
Kleinfeld, Judith. A Long Way From Home: Effects of Public High
Schools on Village Children Aioay From Home., p. 119. Center for
Northern Education Research and Institute of Social Economic and
Government Research — Univ. of Alaska. 1973.
LaFlesche, Francis. The Middle Five: Indian Schoolboys of the Oma-
ha Tribe. Madison, Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1963. 152 pp.
Ma^nies, J. Bilingual Education in Arizona. Report 3., Bilingual Pro-
gram)^ in the Southwest. Bethesda, Md. ERIC Document Reproduc-
tion Sei-vice, 1967.
Mertzberg. Hazel W. Teaching a Pre-Columbian Culture: The Iro-
quois. Albany, New York State Education Department, Bureau of
Secondary Curnculum Development. Rev. 1975. 77 pp.
Michigan, Commission on Indian Affairs. An Evaluation Report on
the State Office of Indian Education. Lansing, Jan. 1976. 21 pp.
Michigan Department of Education. A Position Statement on Indian
Education in Michigan Witli Recommendations and Guidelines.
Lansing, 1974, 49 pp.
INIontana, State Board of Education. Indian Culture Master Plan.
Helena, Mont. Dec. 15, 1975.
Mickelson, Norma and Charles Galloway. "Cumulative Language Defi-
cit Among Indian Children." Exceptional Children (Nov. 1969) :
187-190.
National Advisory Council on Indian Education. Indian Education:
The Right to he Indian: The Third Annual Report to the Congress
of the United States. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1976.
National Education Association. Educational Needs of American In-
dian People. Prepared by Carl DoAvning. Washington, D.C., Dec. 10,
1975. 11 pp.
Project 1975: Educational Neglect^ On-Slte and Research Re-
ports., Working Papers for Partimpants Conference on Educational
Neglect, Felruary 15-18, 1975. Washington, D.C., 1975.
National Indian Training and Research Center. Puhllc School Survey
of Construction Aid Needs Related to the Education of Reserva-
tion Indian Children. Tempe, Ariz. Mar. 1975. 58 pp.
Natioiixal Study of American Indian Education: Research Reports. 2
Vols. Minneapolis, Office of Community Programs, Univ. of Minne-
sota, 1970.
Navajo Tribe, Division of Education. Strengthening Navajo Educo.-
tion. Window Rock, Ariz. June 1973.
New York Education Department. Social Studies: Grade 7 — Our Cul-
tural Heritage; Grade 8 — United States History. Albany, 1965. 132
pp.
Northern State College, South Dakota. Model Program for Orienta-
tion and Retraining of Teachers, Counselors, and Administrators in
Education of Exceptional Indian Children. Feb. 1973. 150 pp.
Oklahoma, Department of Education. 27th Anmual Report of Indian
Education in Oklahoma. Oklahoma City, 1974.
Oklahoma State University, College of Education. Indian Education
Needs Assessment Project. 4 Vols. Stillwater, Mar. 1976.
Ortiz, Alfonso. Project Head Start in an Indian Connmunity. Chicago,
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1965. 70 pp.
Parmee, Edward A. Foimwl Education and Culture Change: A
Modem Apache Indian Community and Government Education
Program. Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1968.
PoDewitz, Thomas. "Reform as Political Discourse: A Case Study."
School Review, Vol. 84 (Nov. 1975) : 43-69.
Porter, Pat. "The Failure of Indian Education." Contemporary Edu-
cation {¥2i\\,lTiZ).
Ramirez, Bruce. Background Paper on American Indian Exceptional
Children. Paper presented to the National Advisory Council on
Indian Education at its Jan. 16-18, 1976, meeting in Reno, Nev.
Rudman, Jack. Civil Service Examination Passbook : Indian Educa-
tion — Elementary Teaclier. Brooklyn, National Learning Corp.,
1971.
. Civil Service Examination Passbook : Indian Education — Sec-
ondary Teacher. Brooklyn, National Learning Corp., 1971.
Selinger, Alphonse and Robert R. Rath. The American Indian High
School Dropout: The Magnitude of the Problem. (Field Paper No.
30) Portland, Oreg., Northwest Regional Education Laboratory,
Feb. 1900.
Smith, Marie H. Higher Education for Indians in the, American
Colonies. M. A. thesis. New York Univ., 1950.
South Dakota, Department of Public Instruction. Title I Activities in
Selected South Dakota Schools, fiscal year 1971. Pierre.
Szasz, Margaret. Education and the American Indian: The Road to
Self -Determination 1928-1973. Albuquerque, Univ. of New Mexico
Press, 1974.
United Scholarship Service. 'TAe Necessity of Education is Admitted.
Denver, 1972. 48 pp. •
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Educational Re-
sources Information Center, Clearinghouse on Rural Education and
Small Schools (ERIC-CRESS). Development of Yocational Edu-
cation Programs for American Indians. Las Cruces, N. Mex., Oct.
1909.
. Indian Parent Involvement in Education. A Basic Sources
Book. Las Cruces, New Mex. June, 1973.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Edu-
cation. Descnptive Case Studies of Nine Elementary School Media
Centers in Three Inner Cities. Washington, 1968.
. Emphasis on Excellence in School Media Programs : Descrip-
tive Case Studies Special Purpose Grant Programs. Washington,
1969. 227 pp.
A Handbook on Evaluation for Title IV Indian Education
Act Projects. Prepared by CPI Assoc. Inc., Washmgton, 19^3.
Indian Education a,nd Civilization. Prepared by Alice C.
Fletcher, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1888. New York,
Kraus Reprinting Co., 1973.
70
. Legislative Analysis of the Federal Role in Indian Education.
Prepared by Vine Deloria, Jr., (Unpublished), Washington, 1975.
. National Indian Education Assoc. Library Project. Identifica-
tion of Info'rm.ation Needs of the American Indian Cornnm/nity
That Can Be Met hy Library Services. Washington, June, 1975. 330
pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaskan
Native Needs Assessment in Education Project ANNA. (Indian
Education, Eesearch and Evaluation Report Series No. 18) 2 Vols.
Albuquerque, 1974.
. Annual Rejmrt of the Superintendent of Indian Schools., 1882-
1910. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
. Basic Needs of Indian Peoyle : Special Report. Washington,
. B.I. A. SclwoTboard Handbook. Washington, 1969.
. Evaluation Report of the Center for the Study of Migrant and
Indian Education, Toppenish, Washington. Prepared by Paul R.
Streiff. (Research and Evaluation Report No. 8) Albuquerque,
Summer, 1972.
Guidelines for Teaching Concepts of Fairness, Justice and
Democracy in BIA and Tribal-Contract Schools. (Curriculum
Bulletin No. 18) Albuquerque, Aug. 1975. 25 pp.
. Higher Education Evaluation: Student Characteristics and
Opinions. Washington, June 25, 1973.
Indian Education — Steps to Progress in the 70^s. Washington,
1973.
. Institute for AmeHcan Indians Arts Transition Evaluation.
Washington, Oct. 1972.
Off -Reservation Boarding School Project., Research and
Evaluation Report. Washington. Aug. 1972.
-.Residential School Analysis, fiscal year 1976. Washington,
1976.
. Survey of Bilingual Education Needs of Indian Children. Pre-
pared by National Indian Training and Research Center. (Research
and Evaluation Report Series No. 36) Albuquerque, Oct. 1975.
-. Ta^k Force Report on Anadarko Area Residential Schools.
Anadarko Area Residential Schools. Anadarko, Okla. Feb. 1976.
71
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian
Education Resources Center. Amended Annual Program Plan for
Fiscal Year 1976 Under Part 5, Education of the Handicapped
Act as amended hy Public Law 93-380. Albuquerque, June, 1976.
177 pp.
-. An Analysis of Academic Achievement of Indian High School
Students in Federal and Public Schools. Prepared by William P.
Bass. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 37) Albuquerque j
May, 1971.
■ . Leadership Conference in Elementary Science Education Uni-
versity of New Mexico. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No.
19.00) Albuquerque, Summer, 1975. 22 pp.
. Student Rights and Responsibilities : A Progress Report. (Re-
search and Evaluation Report Series No. 25-B) Albuquerque, Apr.
1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Student
Rights and Responsibilities : A Review of the Draft of Program
Guidelines. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 25-A) Al-
buquerque, Feb. 1974. 33 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo
Area Office. A7't. Window Rock, Ariz. 1971.
■ . Guidance Curriculum Guidelines. Window Rock, Ariz. 1971.
. High School Guidance. Window Rock, Ark. 1973.
.Navajo Area Health and Physical Education Cu/n^iculum
Guidelines. Window Rock, Ariz. Oct. 1974.
-. Nofvajo Area Language Arts Project: NALAP. 2 Vols, Win-
dow Rock, Ariz., 1973.
. Nawajo Area Science Cwriculum. Window Rock, Ariz., 1975.
.Social Studies: Grades: Beginners — 4- Window Rock, Ariz.,
Aug. 1970.
i U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of
Education. Proceedings of a Conference on Early Childhood Edu-
cation for American Indians Held March 5-7., 1968. Washington,
D.C., 1968.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, Eligihility for
Bureau of Indian Affairs Services: Impact of Public Lata 93-638.
Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Oct. 20, 1975.
72
. Indian Legal Activities. Statiis of Land Reserved for School.,
Agency, and Cemetery Purposes on the Kioica., Comarwhe and
Apache Reservations , Oklahoma.. Memorandum to the Commissioner
of Indian Affairs, Aug. 12, 1957.
. Status of title to lands resei^ed for school and agency purposes
on the former Kiowa., Comanche., and Apache Indian Reservations.,
Western OMahoma. Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Af-
fairs, Jan. 15, 1960 (M-36510) .
. Yankton Sioux School Lands. (Nathan R. Margold). Mar. 1,
1&34 (Memorandum M. 27671) .
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, Division of
Public Lands. Effects of Act — March 11, 19Ji.8 — Within Boundaries
of Uintah and Oiuray IndioM Reservation. Memorandum to Com-
missioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs. June 9, 1961 (D-59-1140.9).
U.S. National Advisory Committee on Education. Federal relations
to Education, parts 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. 1930.
U.S. Office of the Vice President, National Council on Indian Oppor-
tunity. Between T\oo Milesto')ies : The First Report to the President
of the United States. (Unpublished) Washington, 1972.
United Tribes of North Dakota Development Corporation. A Proposal
for the Development of American Indian Curricula. May, 1971. 22
pp.
Washington, Superintendent of Public Instruction. 1975 Annual Re-
port Washington State Johnson O^M alley Education Programs for
Indicm Children. Olympia, Wash. 1975.
. Pre-College Indiam. Youth Conference: What 23 Youths Think
About Their High Schools. Olympia, Wash. 1968.
Winer, Lillian Rosenbaum. Federal Legislation of Indian Education,
1819-1970. Unpublished thesis, Univ. of Maryland, College Park,
1972.
Funding
National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples, Legal
• Defense and Education Fund. J. n Even Chance: A Report on Fed-
eral Funds for Indian Children in Puehlo School Districts. 1971.
Smith, Susan and Margaret Walker. Federal Funding of Indian Ed-
ucation: A Bureaucratic Enigma. Washington, Bureau of Social
Science Research, May, 1973. 142 pp.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National In-
stitute of Education. R&D. Fumding Policies of the National In-
stitute of Education: Review and Recommendations. Washington,
Aug. 1975. 109 pp.
73
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and "Welfare, Office of Ed-
ucation, Office of Indian Education. The Indian Education Act of
.1972: Report of Progress for the Second Year of the Program,
Washington, Apr, 14, 1975.
. Justificatioiis of Ap'propriation Estimates for Committee on
Appropriations Fiscal Year 1977 : Indian Education. Washington,
1976.
Specific Schools
American Indian Higher Education Consortium. Public Law 93-638
Indian Community College Survey Supplemental Data Sv/mmary.
Denver, 1976.
Arizona, Department of Education. A Study of Selected Public
Schools On and Off Indian Reservations in Arizona. Phoenix, 1976.
89 pp.
Belding, Nanceye, Richard G. Woods and Arthur M. Harkins. Evalua-
tion Report of the .1968-1969 University of Minnesota Cultural
Education Specialists o/nd Associate Program: Indian American
and Afro-American Aspects. Minneapolis, Training Center for
Community Programs, Univ. of INIinnesota, June 1969.
Blackbuni, Guy. "Rough Rock Demonstration School : A View from
Within." Arizona Teacher (Jan. 1972) 5-23.
Erickson, Donald. "Failure in Navajo Schooling." Parents Magazine
(Sept. 1970) : 66-113.
Godner, James, Richard G. Woods and Arthur M. Harkins. Charac-
teristics and Attitudes of 1908 Haskell Institute Stud.ents. Min-
neapolis, Training Center for Community Programs, Univ. of Min-
nesota, July, 1970.
Language and Related Characteristics of 1968 Hashell Insti-
tute Students. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Pro-
grams, Univ. of Minnesota, July, 1970.
Harkins, Arthur and Richard Woods. Problems of Cross-CulturaZ
Educational Research and Evaluation: The Rough Rock Demon-
stration School. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Pro-
grams, Univ. of Minnesota, Dec. 1969. 22 pp.
Harkins, Arthur, I. Karon Sherarts and Richard G. Woods. Public
Education of the Prairie Island Sioux: An Interim Report. Min-
neapolis, Training Center for Community Progi'ams, Univ. of Min-
nesota, Dec. 1969. 72 pp.
Navajo Tribe, Division of Education. Developing a. Comprehensive
Plan for Navajo Education: Seminar I. Compiled by Lyle O.
Wright and G. Mark Schoepfle. Window Rock, Ariz. 1975.
74
. NCEP {Navajo Comprehensive Education Plan). Window
Rock, Ariz. Feb. 16, 1976. 72 pp.
. Navajo Community Educational HeaHngs Transcripts. Vols.
2-7. Window Rock, Ariz. Feb. 1976.
Nevada, Department of Education. Stewart Indian School^ Report of
the Visiting Committee., Nov. 197 If.. Carson City, Nev.
New York, Education Department, Office of Cultural Education.
Akwesasne Mohawk. 2 Vols, (language textbooks). Prepared by
Title IV Program, Salmon River Central School. Albany.
O'Brien, Charles A. The Evalu/ition of Haskell Indian Junior College.,
1884-197 Jf. Unpublished thesis. Master of Liberal Studies, Univ. of
Oklahoma, Norman, 1975. 95 pp.
Sandstrom, Roy H., ed. Clash of Cultures ., A Report on the Institute
on American Indian Students in Higher Education., St. Lawrence
Univ. July 10-28, 1972. Canton, N.Y., St. Lawrence Univ., 1972.
Sherarts, I. Karon, Arthur M. Harkins, Richard Woods and Karen
Nordby. The Formal Education of Menominee Children at the High
School Level: Teachers. Minneapolis, Training Center for Com-
munity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, July, 1972.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Ed-
ucation. Proceedings : Indian Education Training Institute., Pacific
Northicest Indian Center, Gonzaga University, Spokane, Wash-
ington, August 5-8, 1971. Washington, D.C., 1971.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. All Indian
Study Commiisslon Report, Intermountam School, Brigham City,
Utah. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 24.01). Albu-
querque, Sept. 1974.
-. Curriculum Guide 1975-1976, Sherman Indian High School.
Riverside, Calif. 1975.
-. Evaluation Report, Miccosukee Indian School, Mlccosukee,
Florida, June 1^-5, 1975. Prepared by Cy Maus, Stephen M. Fain
and Eugene Leitka. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No.
06-B). Albuquerque, 1975.
-, Evaluation Report of Career Education and Safety Education
Choctaw Agency School System,, Philadelphia, Mississippi. (Re-
search and Evaluation Report Series No. 23-B) Albuquerque, May,
1975. 58 pp.
Evaluation Report of the Special Scholarship in Lato for
American Indians, University of New Mexico School of Law. Pre-
pared by George W. Underwood and James R. Pierce. (Research
and Evaluation Report No. 12). Albuquerque, Summer, 1972.
75
. An Evaluation Report: The Pierre Indian School Final Re-
port on Ohjective No. 1 : Evaluation of the 1972-73 School Program.
(Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 22). Albuquerque,
Dec, 1973.
Flandreau Indian School Education Plan. Flandreau, S. Dak.,
1973.
. Ft. Sill ORBS Su7^^ey. (Research and Evaluation Report Se-
ries No. 19) Albuquerque, July, 1973.
'■''Friends''' for the Indians: 100 Years of Education at River-
side Indian School. Anadarko, Okla., 1971.
. The Haskell Transition Evaluation: Ilaskel Indian Junior
College, Lanrrence., Kans.., Sept. 28., 1972. (Research and Evaluation
Report No. 7) Albuquerque, Oct., 1972.
-. Intermountain Boarding School: Infoi^matlon Update. (Re-
search and Evaluation Report Series No. 2-1.02) Albuquerque, 1975.
Intermountain Evaluation Task Force, A Report. (Research
and Evaluation Report Series No. 24.00) Albuquerque, June 1, 1973.
. Navajo Education Survey. Prepared by Comprenetics. (B.I. A.
Navajo Division of Education Contract No. NOOC 1420 6279) Win-
dow Rock, Ariz., June, 1975.
Rough Rock School Evaluation. (Research and Evaluation
Report Series No. 03.10) Albuquerque, Spring, 1974. 89 pp.
-. San Juan Day School Evaluation. Research and Evaluation
Report Series. No. 27) Albuquerque, 1974. 74 pp.
-. Strident Rights and Responsibilities : A Law Focused Cur-
riculum, for American Indian High School Students. Prepared by
Frederick Wilson. (Curriculum Bulletin No. 18.01) Albuquerque,
Nov., 1975.
-. Wahpeton Indian School, Project MESA. Brigham City,
Utah, 1972. 32 pp.
. The Institute of American Indian Arts Background Infor-
mation. Prepared by John W. Tippeconnic, Jr. Albuquerque, Oct. 4,
1972.
. Institute of American Indian Arts. Future Dlrectlo'ns in Na-
tive American Art. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974.
Management Review Team. Management Review Survey.
Flandreau Indian School, November 10-13, 1975. Washington, Dec.
19, 1975. 75 pp.
76
U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. Convniunity School at Rough
Rock. Prepared by Donald A. Erickson and Henrietta Schwartz.
(Contract No. B89^534. Available through the U.S. Department
of Commerce, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical
Information, Springfield, Va.) Washington, Apr. 1969.
White, Emily and Ann Lewis. Ahwesasne leivennanotakwa. N.Y.,
Salmon River Central School, 1973.
Wolcott, Harry. A Kwakiutl Village and School^ Studies in Educa-
tion and Culture Series. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1967.
Woods, Richard and Arthur M. Harkins. Education-Related Pref-
erences and Characteristics of College- Aspiring Vrhan Indian
Teenagers: A Preliminary Report. Minneapolis, Training Center
for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, May, 1969,
EMPLOYMENT
California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor
Statistics and Research. American Indians in California. San Fran-
cisco, 1965.
Robbins, Lynn A. "Navajo Participation in Labor Unions." Lake
Poioell Research Project Bulletin., No. 15 (Dec, 1975). (National
Science Foundation) .
Taylor, Benjamin J. and Dennis O'Connor. Fort Apache Reservation
Manpower Resources. Tempe, Bureau of Business and Economic
Research, Arizona State Univ. 1969.
Thurow, Lester. "Not Making It In America : The Economic Progress
of Minority Groups." Social Policy^ Vol. 6 (Mar.- Apr., 1976) : 5-11.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Arizona Advisory Committee. In-
dian Em-ployment in Arizona. Washington, Feb., 1975.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Montana Advisory Committee. Em-
ployment Practices in Montana: The Effects on American hvdians
and Women. Washington, Aug. 1974.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, New Mexico Advisory Committee.
Indian Employment in New Mexico State Government. Washing-
U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Index to Pub-
lications of the Manpower Administration., Januaoy 1970 through
Jume 1975. Washington, 1975.
. National Indian Manpower Conference, December 1971.
Washington, 1971.
7?
Manpoiver Programs in Rural Areas. Washington, Jan., 1973.
U.S. Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare. Man-
power Report to the President. Washington, Apr., 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Division
of Einfloyment Assistance Annual Statistical Summary 1971.
Washington, 1971.
. Employment Assistance : Future of Navajo Labor Force An-
nual Report 1975. Window Rock, Ariz. 1975
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Audit and Investigation.
Revieio of Adult V ocational Training an/1 Direct Employment As-
sistance Programs., Bureau of Indian Affairs. Washington, 1976.
ENVIRONMENT
Commoner, Barry. The Closing Circle : Nature^ Mam,., and Technology.
New York, Alfred Knopf, 1971.
Fleetwood, Blake. "The Tribe That Taught Cat Dancing." New Times,
Vol.5 (Oct. 31, 1975): 37-41.
Gordon, Suzanne, Black Mesa, Angel of Death. New York, John Day,
1973.
Kemper, Will. Environmental Protection of Indian Lands and Appli-
cation of N.E.P.A. (Paper 8) Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foun-
dation, 1976.
Kneese, Allen and Charles L. Schultz. Pollution, Prices, and Public
Policy. Washington, D.C. The Brookings Institute, 1975.
Stacks, John. Stripping : The Surface Mining of America. San Fran-
cisco, Sierra Club, 1972.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Southwest Entergy Study: An Eval-
uation of Electric Power Generation in the Southwest. Washington,
1972.
Westinghouse Corp. Four Corn£rs Regional Developnnent Study Pro-
gram: A Study of Development Guidelines Including the Analysis
of Economic Potential and the Concept of a New Town for the Four
Comers Region. June, 1969.
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
Collier, John, "United States Indian Administration as a Laboratory
of Ethnic Relations." Social Research, Vol. 12 (1945) : 265.
Danziger, Edmund, Indians and Bureaucrats. Urbana, Univ. of Illi-
nois Press, 1974.
78
Gaillard, Frye. "The Indians and the Bureaucrats." The Progressive
(1973).
Landis, James. The Administrative Process. New Haven, Conn., Yale
Univ. Press, 1928.
Sorkin, Alan L. American Indians and Federal Aid. Washington, D.C.
The Brookings Institute, 1971.
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Eevenue Sharing. Native
American Governments and the General Revenue Sharing Program.
Washington, April, 1975.
Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native Villages Entitlements^ En-
titlement Period 6. Washington, May 23, 1975.
U.S. Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service. Extension of
Federal Indian Programs to Other Indians. Prepared by Stephen
A. Langone, Washington, May 19, 1970.
U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Executive
Reorganization : A Historic Review. Prepared by Ronald C. Moe.
Washington, Jan. 6, 1977.
U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Federal
Programs of^ Assistance to American Indiana. Prepared by Richard
Jones. Washington, Apr., 1975.
U.S. Office of the Vice-President, National Council on Indian Oppor-
tunity. A Study of Federal Indian Domestic Assistance Programs.
Washington, Feb., 1974.
Warren King and Assoc. Government.^ Education., and Welfare Task
Force Programs^ Case Study Report. Chicago, 1971.
FOOD AND NUTRITION
Calloway, D. H. and W. Chenoweth. "Utilization of Nutrients in
Milk and Wlieat Based Diets by Men With Adequate and Re-
duced Abilities to Absorb Lactose." American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Vol. 26 (Sept., 1973) .
"More Than Tea and Toast." The Crusader (Winter- Spring, 1973).
(New York, Food Research and Action Center).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Do-
nated Foods Distributed by Outlet., Quantity and Cost. Washing-
ton, Aug. 22, 1973.
. Family Distribution Program: Quantity and Estimated
Cost of Food Recommended for Distribution. Washington, Oct. 1,
1973. t, , ,
79
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Nutrition,
Growth mid Development of North American Children. Prepared
by William M. Moore, Marjorie Silverberg, and Merrill Read.
("DHEW Publication No. 72-26 NIH.) Washington.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Interdepart-
mental Committee on Nutrition for National Defense and Division
of Indian Health. Blackfeet Indian Reservation: Nutrition Survey
August-September 1961. Washington, 1964.
U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Back-
ground on, the Termination of the Food {Commodity) Distribution
Program for Needi/ Families and Individuals. Washington, Nov.
30, 1973.
Ratified American Indian Treaties That Include Payments
in Food. Pi-epared by Stephen Langone. Washington, Dec. 14, 1973.
U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, Emergency Food and Medical
Services. The Ages of Hunger . . . From P re-Natal to Elderly: A
Report on the Operation of Federal Food Programs. Prepared by
Food for All, Inc. Washington, D.C., June, 1972.
White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health. Final Re-
port. Wasliington, U.S. Go\i:. Print. Off., 1970.
HEALTH
Aberdeen Indian Health Service. Suicide and Suicide Gestures.
Aberdeen, S. Dak., July, 1972.
Adair, John and Kurt Dueschle. The PeopWs Health. New York,
Appleton-Century, Crofts, 1950.
. "Some Problems of the Physician at the Navajo Reservation."
Human Organization., Vol. 16 (1958) : 19-23.
Alaska Native Plealth Board. Evaluation of Medical Care Provided
to Alaskan Natives. Anchorage, Alaska Native Health Board, 1976.
American Medical Association, Committee on Health Care of the
Poor, Committee on Government Services. Health Care of the
Annerican Indian. Chicago, American Medical Association, Dec,
1973.
American Public Health Association. Governing Council. Education
in the School Comtnunity Setting. A position paper. New Orleans,
Apr., 1975.
Attreaye, C. L. and M. Beisre. Service Networks and Patterns of Uti-
lization, Mental Health Programs, Overview and Recommienda-
fions; Eight parts: Aberdeen, Albuquerque, Anchorage, Billings,
80
Navajo, Ohlahoma, Phoenix, and Portland. (IHS Contract No.
HSM 110-73-342).
Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA). Federal Policy
and American Indian Health Needs; Report of the Sixth National
Conference on Indian Health. New York, AAIA, 1974.
Barrow, Mark V. Health and Disease of Am£7ncan Indians North of
Mexico. Gainesville, Univ. of Florida Press, 1972.
Basso, K. H. Heavy With Hatred: An Ethnographic Study of
Western Apache Witchcmft. Thesis, Department of Anthropology,
Stanford Univ., Palo Alto, Calif., 1967 : 172 pp.
Bergman, Robert L. "A School for ]Medicine ]Men." American Jour-
nal of Psychiatry, Vol. 130 (1973) : 663-666.
Bittker, Thomas E. "Dilemmas of Mental Health Service Delivery
to Off-Reservation Indians." Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 46,
No. 3 (July, 1973).
Braasch, E. W. F. and B. J. Branton. "Survey of Medical Care
Among the Upper Midwest Indians.-' Journal of the AM A, Vol.
139, No. 4 (Jan. 22, 1949) : 220-226.
Burkhaltcr, Barton R. "The Papagos 3-Level Model of Political
Process and Health Improvement, A Culture-Specific Intervention
AVliich Reduced Infant Gastroenteritis." Modeling and Simula-
tion, Vol. 5, Pt. 1. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Pittsburgh
Conference, Apr. 24-26, 1974.
Castaneda, Carlos. The Teachings of Don Juan: A Taqui Way of
Knowledge. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1974.
Chorha, Ronald W. and J. L. Sanders. "Planning Models for Tubercu-
losis Control Programs," Health Services Research, Sum.mer, 1971 :
144^164.
Devereaux, George. Mohavse Ethnopsychiatry : TJie Psychic Disturh-
ances of an Indian Trihe. (Bu.reau of American Ethnolo.rrV' Bulletin,
No. 175, 1961). (Report.) Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institu-
tion Press, 1969. 586 pp.
Fields, Suzanne. "Folk Healing for the Wounded Spirit." Innovations,
Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter, 1976) : 2-24.
Fortune, Robert, "Health Care and the Alaska Native: Some Histor-
ical Perspectives." FoZarTVoz^c^, No, XIV (1975) : 1^2.
Hallowell, Irving A. "Values, Acculturation and Mental Health."
American Journcd of Orthopsychiatry (1950) : 732-743.
81
Helper, Malcolm M. and Sol L. Garfield. "Use of the Semantdc Dif-
ferential to Study Acculturation in American Indian Adolescents."
Jou7vial of Personality aiid Social Psychology^ Vol. 2, No. 6 (1965) :
817-822.
Hill, Charles A., Jr. "Measures of Longevity of American Indians."
Public Health Reports, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Mar., 1970) : 233-239.
Hill, Charles A. and Mozart I. Spector. "Natality and Mortality of
American Indians Compared with U.S. Whites and Nonwhites."
HSMHA Health Reports, Vol. 86, No. 3 (Mar., 1971) : 229-246.
(Health Services and Mental Health Admin., Dept. of HEW).
Hoopa Valley Business Council. Medical Clinic Proposal : Hoopa Val-
ley Indian Reservation. Hoopa, Calif., Hoopa Valley Tribes, 1973.
Hoyt, Elizabeth E., "Younk Indians: Some Problems and Issues of
M&nt^lHygiQWQ.'''' Mental Hygiene (1962) : 41-47.
"Indian Medicine Men Hinder M.D.'s" U.S. Medicine (June 15, 1976).
Kane, Robert L. and Rosalie A. Federal Health Care {with Reserva-
tions). New York, Springer Publishing Co., Inc.
Kemberling, Sidney. "The Indian Health Service : Commentary qji a
Commentaiy." Pediatrics, Vol. 51 (June, 1973) : 1066-1067.
Levy, Jerrold. "Navajo Suicide." Human Organization, Vol. 24, No. 4
(Winter, 1965) : 308-318.
Mackey, John and Evelyn Blanchard. Ethnic Differences Infkoencing
the Delivery of Rehabilitation Services: The American Indian.
Washington, D.C., National Rehabilitation Assoc, 1971.
Marsden, Gillian. National Health Insurance and Community Health
Centers : An Analysis of Implications for the Seattle Indian Health
Board. Seattle, School of Public Health and Community Medicine,
Univ. of Washington, June, 1975.
Michigan, Office of the Governor, State Heialtli Planning Advisory
Council and the Office of Health and Medical Affairs. Meeting the
Health Needs of Migrants and Amey^ican Indians. Lansing, June,
1975.
Moorman, Lewds J. "Health of the Navajo-Hoiyi Indians." Joinmal of
the AM A. Vol. 139, No. 6 (Feb. 5, 1949) : 370-376.
Mortimer, Edward. "Indian Health : An Unmet Problem." Pediatrics,
Vol. 51 (June, 1973) : 1065-1066.
Navajo Health Authority, Division of Planning, Evaluation, and De-
velopmentt-. Health Reso^irces Directory, Navajo Nation. Window
Rock, Ariz., Aujr. 15, 1973.
Nutting, Paul A., Charles R. Strotz, Gregory I. Schorr, and Law-
rence E. Berg. "Reduction of Gastroenteritis Morbidity in High-
Risk Infants." Pediatrics, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Mar., 1975).
Getting, Eugene R, and Norman G. Dinges. Evaluation Summary
Model D'oi-'mitory Project. (Indian Health Service Contract No.
HSM 74-70-112). Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Institute,
Inc., July 1,1973.
Ogden, Michael, Mozait I. Spector, and Charles A. Hill. "Suicides and
Homicides Among Indians." Public Health Reports, Vol. 85 (1970) :
75-80.
Parran, Dr. Thomas, et al. Alaska's Health: A Survey Report to the
United States Department of the Interior. Pittsburgh, Univ. of
Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, 1954.
Rabeau, E. S. and Charles J. Erickson. "Health Care Problems of the
American Indians." ISA Transactions, Vol. 13, No. 4 (1974) : 319-
325.
Rabin, David, et al. Health Problems and Disease of the U.S. and
Noi'th American Populations. New York, MSS Informaition Corp.,
1972.
Reese, Kennet^h M. "Obstacles to the Psychological Development of
American Indian Children." Family Laio Quarterly, Vol. 9 (Winter,
1975) : 573-593.
Rubenstein, A., J. Boyle, C. L. Odoroff, and S. J. Kunitz. "Effect of
Impiy)ved Sanitary Facilities on Infant Diarrhea in a Hopi Village."
Public Health Reports, Vol. 84, No. 12 (Dec, 1969) : 1093-1097.
Seattle Indian Health Board. Annual Report. 197^. Seattle, 1974.
27 pp.
Shore, James H., John F. Bopp, Thelma R. Walker, and James W.
Dawes. Suicide Prevention Center on an. Indian Resem'ation. Port-
land, Oreg., Portland Area Indian Health Service, 1969.
Shorr, Gregory T. and Paul A. Nutting. An Evaluation of the Con-
tinuity of Amhulatory Care. Tucson, Indian Health Service, Sept.
1974.
Smith, David A. "American Indian Health Care— Goal for All?"
Pennsylvania Medicine, Vol. 79, No. 1 (Jan.. 1975) : 35.
Steinfeld, Jesse R. "Government Versus Health; 1974." Annals of
Internal Medicine, Vol. 81, No. 4 (Oct., 1974) : 541-544.
Stei-n, Ester W. and Allen E. Steam. Effects of Smallpox on the Des-
tiny of the Amerindian. Deer Park, N.Y., Brown Book Co., 1970.
Townsley, H. C. and George S. Goldstein. The View of the Etiology of
Depression in the American Indian. Albuquerque, U.S. Public
Health Service.
Tuberculosis Vaccines Clinical Trials Committee. "BDG and vole
bacillus vaccines in the prevention of tuberculosis in adolescence and
early adult life." Bulletin of World Health Organizations, Vol. 46
(1972) : 371-385.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Indian Health
Trends and Services. Washington, 1970 ed. 100 pp.
-. Evaluatimi of the DHEW Health Manpower Training Pro-
grams Relative to Indians. Washington, Feb., 1972. 300 pp.
The Health Manpoicer Report: An Evaluative Study of De-
partment of Health, Education., and Welfare Services to Ethnic
Minorities. Prepared by Urban xA.ssoc., Inc., Washington, July,
1973.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Division of In-
dian Health. Mental Health Activities in the Indian Health Pro-
gram. Washington, 1967.
U.S. Department of Health Education, and Welfare, Indian Health
Service. F ouiulations That Provide Support in Human Serviced: A
Selected List for Indian Communities. Prepared by Phoenix Area
IHS Mental Health Board and Office of Research and Development,
IHS, Tucson. Washington, Apr., 1973.
. Health Resources Supplement for Research, Development,
Health Services: A Source Book for American Indiaiis, Alaska Na-
tives, Indian Health Se^nuce Staff. Washington, Nov. 1, 1970. 93 pp.
Illness Among Indians 1965-1969. (DHEW Publication No.
HSM 72-507) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health
Service, Dental Services Branch. Dental Program Efficiency Cri-
teria and Stan/lards for the Indian Health Service. Washington,
Nov. 1, 1974.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health
Service, Human Resources Development Branch. New Careers in
tlie Indian Health Program. (DHEW Publication No. HSM 73-
12.001 ) , Washington, 1972.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health
Sei-vice, National American Indian Safety Council. Final Projiect
Report ^''Evaluation of Factors Contributing to Excessive Accident
Rates Among American Indians.'''' (Contract HSA 74-74^132).
Washington, Aug. 31, 1975.
84
U.S. Department of Health, Educaition, and Welfare, Indian Health
Service, National Community Health Representatives Educational
Conference. Seven States Indian Health Association EducatioTial
Conference Planning Committee. (IHS Contract No. 241-76-0422).
Washington, 1976.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health
Sei-vice, Office of Research and Development. Process and Outcome
Measurer of Tribal Health Woi^kers in Direct Patient Care. Tucson,
Oct., 1974.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health
Service, Sensory Disabilities Program. Otitis Media Report: Fiscal
Year 1975. Washington, Apr., 1976.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Insti-
tute of Mental Health. Suicide Anriong the American Indians: Tioo
Workshops. (Public Health Service Publication No. 1903) Wash-
ington, June, 1969.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Safety
Progress Reports, 1973. Washington, 1973.
U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Space Tech-
nology in Remote Health Care. Report on STARPAHC (Space
Technology Applied to Rural Papago Advanced Health Care).
Houston, Aug., 1974.
Walker, Frances. "Bridging a Gap for Better Patient Care." Military
Medicine (Jan., 1974) : 26.
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF
Indian Health Ser\t:ce
Barnett, Harry, Jack Fields, George Milles, Joseph Silverstein, and
Arthur Berstein. "Medical Conditions in Alaska." Journal of AM A,
Vol. 135 (Oct. 25, 1947) : 500-510.
Hosteller, C. L. and J. D. Felsen. "Multiple Variable Motivators In-
volved in the Recruitment of Phvsicians for the Indian Health
Service." PuUic Health Reports, Vol. 90 ( July-Aug., 1975) : 319-
324.
Norton Sound Health Corporation. Village Health Services. Nome,
Alaska, May, 1976.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Evaluation of
the DHEW Health Manpovier Training Programs Relative to In-
dians. Washington, Feb., 1972. 300 pp.
350 pp.
Health Services for American Indians. Washington, 1957.
85
. To the First Ameiicans, the Jfth Annual Report on the Indian
Health Program of the U.S. Public Health Service, (rev. ed.)
Washington, 1975.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health
Service. Aberdeen Area Indian Health Service Un-Met Needs.
Aberdeen, S. Dak., Apr., 1976.
• . Almka Area Native Health Service Operating Plan Fiscal
. Alaska, Native Medical Center and Anchorage Service Unit
Operating Plan Fical Year 197J^. Anchorage, 1973.
Annual Report Fiscal Year 1971., Nursing Services Branch.
Washington, 1971.
Bai^oic Service Unit Operating Plan Fiscal Year 197^. An-
chorage, 1974.
. Bethel Service Unit Operating Plan Fiscal Year 197 Ji.. An-
chorage, 1973.
. Community Health Representative, A Changing Philosophy of
Indian Involvement. Washington, Feb., 1970.
. An Evaluation of Local Indian Health Board Involvement in
the Management of Indian Health Service Delivery System., A
Final Report of the Phase II Evaluation Project of the National
Indian Health Board. Washington, Aug. 7, 1975.
-. Kotzehue Service Unit Operating Pla/n Fiscal Year 1975. An-
. Mt. Edgecumhe Service Unit Operating Plan Fiscal Year
1975. Anchorage, 1974.
. Self-Determitiafion HIS Contracts Public Law 93-638,
1975. Washington, 1975.
Service Netivorks and Patterns of Utilization : Mental Health
Programs of the Indian Health Service. Prepared by C. L. Att-
neave and M. Beiser. (IHS Contract No. IHS HSM 110-73-342).
Washineton, 1973.
. Service Unit Pro-files, Fiscal Years 1975-1976. Blackfeet,
Crow, Flathead, Fort Belknap, Fort Peck, Northern Cheyenne,
Rocky Boy^s, arid Wind River Service Units. Billings, Mont., 1974.
Tanana Service Unit Operating Plan Fiscal Year 1975. An-
chorage, 1974.
. Task Force Report on the Sanitation Facilities Construction
Program' Indian Health Service. Washington, Aug., 1975.
86
. Office of Special Concerns. A Study of the Indian Health Serv-
ice and Indian THhal Involvement in Health. Washington, Aug.,
1974.
Whiting, Beatrice Blyth. Paiute Sorcei-nj. New York, Viking Fund
Publication in Anthropology, No. 15, 1950.
Wilson, Marcia J. and Thomas Luebben. A Study of the Legality and
Rationality of Reservation/ Off -Reservation. Eligibility Require-
ment for IHS for Contract Care. A paper presented to the National
Indian Youth Council, 1976.
Wilson, Martha E. Federal Health Care for Alaska Natives. Paper
presented to the Alaska Native Health Board, July 19, 1972.
Wilson, Martha E. and Charles Brady. Health Care in Alaska via
Satellite. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1975.
Woods, David. " Yellowknife Symposium, Part I : Changing Plealth
Patterns in the Circumpolar Eegions.'' Canadian Medical Associa-
tion Journal, Vol. Ill (Sept. 7, 1974) ; 457-459.
National Institute ox Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
Eobinson, Shirley. "Self-Help Programs for Indians and Native
Alaskans." Alcohol Health and Research World (Summer, 1974) :
11-16.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Insti-
tute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Native American Alcohol -
. ism Program, Otdput Reports for the Period Ending June 30.,
1976^ Report III-B Performance C ompamson. Washington, 1975.
. Evaluative Data, on NIAAA Alcoholism Treatment Programs
for Fiscal Tear 1975. Washington, Oct., 1975.
Office of Education (OE)
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Indian
Education. The Indian Education Act of 1972. Report of Progress
for the Seconfid. Year of the Program. (DHEW Publication No. OE
75-02401) Washington, Apr. 14, 1975.
Office of Native American Programs (ONAP)
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Native
American Programs. Fiscal Year 1976 Research and Evaluation
Plan. Washington, 1975.
— I — . Organizational Structure, Major Functions, Position Descrip-
tions, and Accountahility Procedures for the Office of Native Amer-
ican Programs. AVashington, 1975.
87
. Report on the In-Dej>th Evaluations of Fifth Quarter Grant-
ees. 5 Vols. Prepared by Centaur Management Consultants, Inc.
(Contract No. 105-76-6100, ONAP) Washington, 1976.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Native
American Programs, Office of Human Development. Office of Na-
tive Ameri<;an Programs Implementation Plan for Title VIII^ Com-
munity Services Act Public Law 93-644' Washington, May 12, 1975.
HOUSING
California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
Housing Study of Happy Camp Karok Tribe. Prepared by Jack K.
Sanderson and Gilbert Fernandez. Sacramento, May, 1976.
Housing Assistance Council, Inc. H.U.D. Information 1974 ci^nd 1975.
Washington, Mar. 1974.
Indian Housing Roles: Bureau of Indian Affairs., Indian
Health Service. Washington, July 1, 197
Navajo Tribe, Navajo Housing Authority, Mutual Help Participants''
Selection Guideline. Window Eock, Ariz., Nov., 1973.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing : 1970. Vol. 1 : Housing
Characteristics for States, Cities and Counties. Washington, T^.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1972.
U.S. Department of Housing and TTrban Development. Community
Development: A Manual on Trihal Housing Enterprises and Re-
sources. Prepared bv the Nonprofit Housing Center, Inc., for HUD
and the B.I.A. Wasliingion, 1970.
. Housing in the Seventies; A Report of the National Housing
Policy Review. Washington, 1974. 250 pp.
-. The National Indian Housing Cotiference, Scottsdale., Anz.,
Nov. 14-16,1974 (HUD-EO-81) Washington, 1974.
U.S. Department of Housing and TTrban Development, Office of the
General Counsel, Aj^plicahility of the Indian Civil Rights Act and
the 14th Amendment to the Occupancy Policies of Indian Housing
Atithorities. Memorandum to Eobert R. Elliot, Deputy General
Counsel, Feb. 15,1974.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Task Force
on Indian Programs. First Report of the Task Force on Indian
Programs, (mimeo) Washington, Nov. 6, 1975.
HUNTING AND FISHING RIGHTS
American Friends Service Committee. Uncommon Controversy: The
Fishing Rights of the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, and Nisqually Indi-
ans. Seattle, Univ. of Washington Press, 1970.
88
Holte, H. Scott. '•'-United States v. Washington: A Unique Kettle of
Fish." Paper submitted to the Indian Legal Problems Seminar.
(Unpublished.) Seattle, Univ. of Washington Law Library, 1974.
Hyde, Frederick W., Jr. Treaty Hunting and Fishing Rights of the
Klamath Indians. Paper submitted to the Indian Legal Problems
Seminar. (Unpublished.) Seattle, Univ. of Washington Law Li-
brary, June 5, 1975.
Muskrat, Joe. "Assimilate — or Starve." Civil Rights Digest (Oct.,
1972) : 27-34.
INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
U.S. Laws, Statutes. Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Approved
Apr. 11, 1968, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (Public Law 90-284, 25 U.S.C.
§1301, 82 Stat. 77).
Ward, David C. The Scope of the Equal Protection Requirement of
the Indian Civil Rights Act. Paper submitted to the Indian Legal
Problems Seminar. Seattle, Univ. of Washington Law Library,
June, 1974.
INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). American Indian
Declaration of Sovereignty. Paper presented at the Thirty-first An-
nual Convention. Washington, D.C., NCAI, 1974.
Indian Declaration of Purpose. Paper presented at a national
meetmg, June 13-20, 1961, Chicago.
U.S. Office of the Vice President, National Council on Indian Op-
portunity. Administrative files, 1968-197 1^. Record Group 220, Nat-
ural Resources Branch, U.S. National Archives, Washington.
INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT (IRA)
Berkey, Curtis. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1931^,. Washington,
D.C., Institute for the Development of Indian Law, 1976.
Downes, Randolph. "A Crusade for Indian Reform, 1922-1934." Mis-
sissippi Valley Historical Review., Vol. 32 (Dec. 1945).
Hass, Theodore. The Indian Reorganization Act in Historical Per-
spective, Symposium. 52d Annual Meeting, American Anthropolog-
ical Assn., Tucson, Ariz., Dec. 30, 1953.
Oklahoma, Laws, Statutes. OMahoma Act of June %6, 1936. Oklahoma
Welfare Act with Provisions of Indian Reorganization Act Appli-
cable in Oklahoma.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Atfairs. The De-
velopment of C oilier'' s I.R.A. Policy, Indian Service Policies; Gal-
leys 1-6. Located under 75, 56-A-588, 395, 50660-45-120, Federal
Archives and Records Service, Fort Worth, Tex.
89
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. The Organiza-
zation of the Nooksack Indians under the Indian Reorganization
Act. Solicitor's Opinion M-36833. Washington.
-. Pcnoers of Indian Tnhes^ Opinion^ Oct. 25^ 1934. Interior De-
cisions, Vol. 55, pp. 14-67. Washington.
INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION ACT
American Indian Higher Education Consortium. Public Laio 93-638
Indian Community College Survey., Supplemental Data Smmnary.
Denver, Colo., 1975.
Kickingbird, Kirke. "Indian Self-Determination and Education Re-
form Act of 1973." Education Journal, Vol. 1 (Feb., 1973). (Insti-
tute for the Development of Indian Law) .
National Congress of American Indians. N.C.A.I./N.T.C.A. Review
and Analysis Project; Public Law 93-638, B.I. A. Regidatiojis. Let-
ter to all tribes. Washington, D.C., 1975.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Hand-
book for Decision Makers on Title I of the Indian Self-Determina-
tion and Education Assistance Act. Washington, Feb. 10, 1976.
U.S. Laws, Statutes. Indian Self-Determination and Education As-
sistance Act. Approved Jan. 4, 1975, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (Public
Law 93-638, 25 U.S.C. § 450, 88 Stat. 2203).
INDIANS
General
Adair, John. "The Navajo and Pueblo Veteran, A Force for Culture
Change." American Indian, Vol. IX, No. 1, 1947.
American Baptist Convention, Board of Education. The Moccasin
Trail. Philadelphia, Boston, Judson Press, 7932. (Microfilmed 1975,
Library of Congress, No. 54409) .
American Indian Treaty Council Information Center. Native Ameri-
can Women. New York, 1975.
Bahr, Howard M. Native Americans Today. New York, Harper and
Row, 1972.
Berkhofer, Robert F. Salvation and the Savage. Lexington, Univ. of
Kentucky Press, 1965.
Berthrong, Donald J. The Southern Cheyennes. (Civilization of the
American Indian Series, No. 66) Norman, Univ. of Oklahoma Press,
1963. 422 pp.
90
Brill, Charles, Indian and Free : A Contemporary Picture of Life an
a Chippeioa Reservation. Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota Press,
1974.
Cohen, Edgar S. Our Brother'' s Keeper: The Indian in White Amer-
ica. Washington, D.C., World Publishing Co., 1969.
Collier, John. From Every Zenith. Denver, Sage Books, 1963.
Indians of the Americas: The Long Hope. New York, New
American Library, 1947.
Collier, Peter. The Theft of a Nation; Apologies to the Cherohees.
Kamparts, 1970.
Colson, Elizabeth. The Mdkah Indians : A Study of an Indian Tribe
in Modern American Society. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press,
1974.
Council of Women for Home Missions and Missionary Education
Movement. Facing the Future in Indian Missions. New York, 1932.
Deloria, Vine, Jr. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto.
New York, Avon Books, 1972.
Denig, Edwin Thompson, Five Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri:
Sioux, Arickaras, Assiniboimss, Crees, Crows. John C. Ewers, ed.
(Civilization of the American Indian Series, No. 59) Norman,
Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1961. 217 pp.
Downes, Kandolph Chandler. Council Fires on the Upper Ohio. Pitts-
burgh, 1940.
Driver, Harold E. Indians of North America. Chicago, Univ. of
Chicago Press, 1961.
Fey, Harold E. and D'Arcy McNickle. Indians and Other Americcms —
Txco Ways of Life Meet. New York, Harper and Row, 1959.
Fire, John. Lame Deer., Seeker of Visions. New York, Simon and
Schuster, 1972.
Garbarino, Merwyn S. Big Cypress: A Changing Seminole Commu-
nity. New York, Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1972.
Giere, Thomas P. Red Man in a Gray Area: The Puyallup Indians.
Paper submitted for Indian Legal Problems Seminar, Spring, 1971.
Seattle, Univ. of Washington Law Library.
Greenman, Emerson Frank. The Indians of Michigan. Lansing Mich.
Historical Commission, 1961.
m
Hanson, Lorie and A. Harkins. Suburban School Children and Ameri-
can Indians ; A Survey of Impressions. Minneapolis, Training Cen-
ter for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
Harkins, Arthur M. and Richard G. Woods. Attitudes and Character-
istics of Selected Wisconsin Indians. Minneapolis, Training Center
for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, July, 1969.
Henderson, E. B. and J. E. Levy. "Survey of Navajo Community
Studies, 1936-1974." Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin, No.
6 (Mar., 1975) : 145 pp. (National Science Foundation)
Holbert, Victoria L., Arthur M. Harkins, Richard G. Woods and I.
Karon Sherarts. Indian Americans at Mille Lacs. Minneapolis,
Training Center for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota,
July, 1970.
Hudson, Charles M. The Catawba Nation. Univ. of Georgia Press,
1970.
-. Red^ White., and Black. Symposium on Indians in the Old
South. Univ. of Georgia Press, 1972.
Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Indians and the U.S.
Government. Washington, D.C., 1975.
Jenkins, Myra Ellen. Pueblo Indians^ If.. New York, Garland Publica-
tions, 1974.
Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. "Wounded Knee and All That — ^What the
Indians AVant." The New York Times, Mar. 18, 1973.
LaFarge, O. "Disintegration and the American Indians." Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 311, (1957).
Leighton, A. H. and D, C. The Navajo Door. Cambridge, Mass., Har-
vard Univ. Press, 1944.
Lurie, Nancy Oestreich. "The will-o-the-wisp of the Indian unity."
Indian Historian, Vol. 9 (1976) : 19-24.
McBridge, Stewart Dill. "New England Indian Caught Between
Two Cultures." The Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 19, 1974.
McGraw, James R. "God is Also Red: An Interview with Vine
Deloria Jr." Christianity and Crisis, Vol. 35 (Sept. 15, 1975) : 198-
206.
Malan. Vernon D. The Dakota Indian Community. Brookings, Rural
Sociology Department, Agricultural Experiment Station, South
Dakota State College, 1962.
92
Marken, Jack Walter. The Indians and Eskimos of North Ameinca.
Vermillion, S. Dak., Dakota Press, 1973.
Marx, Herbert, Jr. The American Indian: A Rising Ethnic Force.
New York, H. W. Wilson Co., 1973.
bury Press, 1973.
Milling, Chapman James. Red Carolinians. Columbia, Univ. of South
Carolina Press, 1969.
Mooney, James. Myths of the Cherokee. Xashville, C. Elder — Book-
seller, 1972.
Parker, Arthur Caswell. Parker on the Iroquois. Syracuse, Syracuse
Univ. Press, 1968.
Phillips, George Harwood, Chiefs and ChaUevgers: Indian Resistance
and Cooperation in SouHieim California. Berkeley, Univ. of Cali-
fornia Press, 1975.
Price, John A. Cultural Divergence Related to Urhan Proximity on
American Indian Reservations. Minneapolis, Training Center for
Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1971.
Ritzenthaler, Robert Eugene. "The Oneida Indians of Wisconsin."
Milwaukee, Milwaukee Public Museum Bulletin.^ Vol. 19, No. 1
(1950).
Shepardson, Mary. Navajo Ways in Government : A Study in Politi-
cal Process. New York, Kraus Reprint Co., 1963.
Simpson, George E. and J. Milton Yinger. "American Indians and
American Life." Annals of the Amencan Academy of Political and
Social Science (May, 1957).
Sioux Indians. Vols. 1-4. New York, Garland Publications, 1974.
Smith, G. Hubert. Omaha Indians. New York, Garland Publications,
1974.
Snake, Reuben A., Jr. Being Indian Is . . . ^lacy, Nebr., Nebraska
Indian Press, 1972.
Speck Frank Gouldsmith. Cherokee Dance and Drama. Berkeley,
Univ. of California Press, 1951.
Standing Bear, Luther. My People., The Sioux. Lincoln, Laiiv. of
Nebraska Press, 1975.
Stanley, Sam, Bruce MacLachlan and Myron Rosenberg. "The North
American Indians : 1950 Distribution of Descendants of the Aborig-
93
inal Population of Alaska, Canada and the United States." (map)
Chicago, Department of Anthropology-, Univ. of Chicago, Dec,
1960.
Starkey, Marion Lena, llie Clierokee Nation. New York, Russell and
Russell, 1972.
Steiner, Stanley-. The New Indians. New York, Harper and Row, 1967.
Strickland, Rennard. "Friends and Enemies of the American Indian :
An Essay Reiaew on Native American Law and Public Policy."
American Indian Law Review., Vol. 3, No. 2 (1975) : 313-331.
S wanton. John Reexl. The Indians of the ^outheasteim United States.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1946. Grosse Pointe, ]\Iich.,
Scholarly Press, 1969.
Trenholm, Virginia Cole. The Shoshonis, Sentinels of the Rockies. (1st
ed.) Nomian, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1964.
Tureen, Thomas N. "Remembering Eastern Indians." Inequality in
Education, No. 10 (Dec., 1971) .
LT.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Navajo Nation: An American
Colony. Washington, Sept., 1975,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. FaTrwus
Indians: A Collection of Short Biographies. Washington, 1974.
. Indians of Arizona. (506-389) Washington, 1973.
. Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts of Alaska. (0-315-121) Wash-
ington, 1968.
. Indians of California. (0-287-163) Washington, 1968.
-. Indians of Montana/ Wyoming. (0-287-698) Washington,
-. Indians of New Mexico. (0-315-122) Washington, 1968.
Indians of North Carolina. (0-472-350) Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1972.
-. Indians of Oklahoma. (0-496-170) Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1973.
. Indians of the Central Plains. (0-291-540) Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1968.
. Indians of the Dakotas. (0-289-766) Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1968.
94
. Indians of the Great Lakes Area. (0-311-555) Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1968.
. Indians of the Gulf States. (0-311-554) Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1968.
. Indians of the Lower Plateau. (0-506-609) Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1973.
Indians of the Northwest. (0-496-560) Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1973.
Indians of North Carolina. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1915. (Library of Congress microfihii No. 53,192)
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix
Area Office. Information Profiles of Indian Reservations in Arizona.,
Nevada., and Utah. Phoenix, 1976.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Delegation of the United States. In-
dians of the United States. 2 Vols. Paper presented by Delegation,
First Inter- American Conference on Indian Life, Patzcuaro, Mex-
ico, Apr., 1940.
Walker, Robert Sparks. Torchlights to the CheroJcees. New York,
Macmillan Co., 1931.
Washington, Office of the Governor. Are You Listening., Neighbor?
Report of the Indian Affairs Task Force. Olympia, Wash., 1971.
Wisconsin, Department of Health and Social Services, Bureau of
Health Statistics. Indians in Wisconsin — Births^ Deaths and Popu-
lation 1968-1972. Prepared by Ellen M. Noor, Madison, Dec, 1974.
History
Acuma, Rodolfo F. Sonoran Strongman Ignaclo Pesquiera and His
Times. Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1974.
Axtell, J. Through a Glass Darhly: Colonial Attitudes Toioard Native
Americans. Bronxville, N.Y., Sarah Lavt^rence College, Faculty
Papers, 1973.
Beatty, Charles. The Journal of a Two Months Tour. London, 1768. St.
Clair Shores, Mich., Scholarly Press, 1972.
Beatty, Donald R. History of the Legal Status of the Anierican In-
dian loith Particidar Reference to California. San Francisco, Rand
E. Research Assoc, 1974.
Benson, Henry Clark. Life Among the Choctaw Indians and Sketches
of the Southxuest. Cincimiati, L. Swormstedt and A. Poe, 1860. New
York, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1970.
95
Beverid^e, Albert Jeromiali. TJie Life of John Marshall., Vols. 1-4.
New York, Houghton Mifliin Co., 1916.
Blunt, Joseph. A Historical Sketch of the Formation of the Confeder-
acy Particularly with Reference to the Provincial Limits and the
Jw^sdiction of the General Government over Indian Tribes and the
Public Territory. New York, George and Charles Carville, 1826.
Brennen, Jere L. The Forgotten American— American Indians Re-
membered. New York, Council on Social Work Education, 1972.
Campbell, Kobert, Cherohee Indians. Savannah, Ga., 1829.
Cherokee Historical Assn. Unto These Hills. Cherokee, N.C., 1969.
Colden, Cadwallader. The History of the Five Indian Nations of
Canada. London. T. Osborne, 1747. Toronto, Coles Pub. Co., 1972.
New York, Allerton Book Co.', 1922. New York, AMS Press, 1973.
Cook, Sherburne Friend. Colonial Ex'peditions to the Interior of Cali-
fornia Central Y alley. Berkeley, Univ. of California Press, 1960.
The Conflict between the California Indian and White Civil-
ization. Berkeley, Univ. of California Press, 1976.
Curtis, Edward S. Portraits from North American IndwM Life. New-
York, Outerbridge and Lazard, 1972.
Dale, Edward Everett. Cherohee Cavaliers. Norman, Univ. of Okla-
homa Press, 1939.
Debo, Angle. And Still the Waters Run; The Betrayal of the Five
Civilized Tribes. Princeton, N.J., Princeton Univ. Press, 1973.
Eastman, Charles A. "The North American Indian." Frdversal Races
Conference., London, 1911, No. 1 : 367-376.
Eastman, Charles Alexander. From the Deepwoods to Civilization.
Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1925.
Eaton, Rachel Caroline. John Ross aiul the Cherokee Indians. Mena-
sha, Wis., George Banta Publishing Co., 1914.
Ells, Myron. History of Indian Missions on the Pacific Coast. Phila-
delphia, New York, American Sunday School Union, 1882. (Li-
brary of Congi-ess Microfilm # 37942 ) .
Ellison, William Henry. The Federal Indian Policy in California^
18IfG-1860. San Francisco, E. and E. Research Assoc. 1974. '
Filler, Louis, TIlc Removal of the Cherokee Nation. Boston. Heath,
1962.
96
Fleischmann, Glen. Cherokee Removal^ 1838. New York, Watts, 1971.
Foreman, Grant. Indian Removal; The Emigration of the Five Civi-
lized Trihes of Indians. Normian, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1953.
Friends, Society of. Associated Executive Committee on Indian Af-
fairs. A Brief Account of Friends' Missionary Work Among the
Indians, 1869-1901. Philadelphia, 1901.
Fritz, Henry. The Movement for Indian Assimilation: 1860-1890.
Philadelphia, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1963.
Harman, George Dewey, Sixty Years of Indian Affairs., Political.,
Economic and Diplomatic, 1789-1850. Chapel Hill, Univ. of North
Carolina Press, 1941.
Heizer, Robert Fleming. The Destruction of California Indians.
Santa Barbara, Calif., Peregrine Smith, 1974.
Hoopes. Alban W. Indian Affairs and Their Administration., with
Special Reference to the Far West, 18Jid-1860. London, H. Milford,
Oxford Univ. Press, 1932.
Hyde, George E. A Sioux Chronicle. (1st ed.) Norman, Univ. of Okla-
homa Press, 1956.
International Congress of Americanists, 29th, New York, 1949. The
Civilizations of Ancient America. New York, Cooper Square Pub-
lishers, 1967.
Jackson, Helen Maria (Fiske) Hurst. A Century of Dishonor. Bos-
ton, Roberts Brothers, 1888. Reprinted St. Clair Shores, Mich.,
Scholarly Press, 1972.
Jackson, K. A Study of Changes of Authority Relations hetioeen
American Indians and Government. Doctoral thesis, Univ. of Ore-
gon, Sept., 1971.
Kenner, Charles L. A History of Neio Mexican Plains Indian Rela-
tions. Norman, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1969.
Kilpatrick, Jack Frederick. Sequoyah of Earth and Intellect. Austin,
Tex. Encino Press, 1965.
Landon, Fred. Letters of Reverend James Evans, Methodist Mission-
ary. Toronto, 1932.
Lumpkin, "Wilson, The Removal of the Cherokee Indian from Georgia,
1827-mi. New York, A. M. Kelley, 1971.
McCoy, Isaac. History of Baptist Indian Missions. New York, John-
son Reprint Corp., 1970.
97
McLaiiglilin, James. My Friend^ the Indian. New York, Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1926.
McNickle, D'Arcy. They Game, Here First: The Epic of the Ameri-
can Indmn. New York, Harper and Row, 1975.
Mesplie, Father. "Report of Chaplain Mesplie of Fort Boise." Army
and Navy Journal (Apr. 6, 1878) .
^liles, Nelson A. "The Indian Question." The North American Re-
view, Vol. 128, No. 268 (Mar. 1879) : 304-314.
]Moody, Marshall, "A History of the Board of Indian Conimissioners
and Its Relationship to the Administration of Indian Affairs
1869-1900." M.A. thesis, Washington, D.C., American University,
1951.
Morgan, Lewis H. "The Indian Question." The Nation, No. 700 (Nov.
28, 1878) : 332-333.
New York (colony) . An Abridgement of the Indian Affairs Contained
in Four Folio Volumes. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univ. Press,
1915.
Prescott, William Hickling. History of the Conquest of Mexico, Vols.
1-4. New York, AMS Press, 1968.
Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Policy. Indianapolis, Indiana
Historical Society, 1971.
. Americanizing the American Indian. 1973.
. Documents of United States Indian Policy. Lincoln, Univ.
of Nebiuska Press, 1975.
Quimbv, George Irving. Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes. 11,000
B.dto A.D. 1800. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960.
Rahill, Peter James. The Catholic Indian Missions amd Granfs
Peace Policy. Washington, D.C., Catholic Univ. of America Press.
1953-1954.
Richardson, J. Messages of the Presidents, Vols. I-X. Washing-ton,
D.C. 1903.
Riggs. A. L. "What Shall We Do with the Indians." The Natimi, (Oct.
31, 1967): 356.
Sass, Herbert R. "The Future of the Indian Question." The North
Ainei'iean Revieiu CLII (Jan., 1891) : 1-10.
Satz, Ronald M. American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Lin-
coln, Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1974.
98
Schoolcraft, Henry Howe. Historical and Statistical Information Re-
specting the History, Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes
of the United States. Vols. 1-5. Pliiladelpliia, Lippincott, Grambo,
1851-1856. New York, reprinted by Paladin Press, 1969.
Scliwarge, Edmund. History of the Moravian Blissions Among South-
ern Indian Tribes of the United States. Bethlehem, Pa., Times
Publishing Co., 1923.
Shea, John Dawson Gilmary. History of the Catholic Missions Among
the Indian Tribes of the United States, 1529-1854. New York. Arno
Press, 1969.
Spicer, Edward Holland. Cycles of Conquest. Tucson, Univ. of Ari-
zona Press, 1962.
Taylor, Graham D. ^^Anthropologists, Reformers and the Indian Neio
DeaV Prologue, Vol. 7 (Fall, 1975) : 151-162.
Thwaites, Reuben J. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents;
Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries In New France,
lGlO-1791. Cleveland, Burrows Bros., 1896-1901.
Tremiei-t, Eobert A. Alternative to Extinction: Federal Indian Policy
and the Beginnings of the Reservation System, 1811.6-1851. Phila-
delphia, Temple Univ. Press, 1975.
Tyler, Lyman S. A Histonj of Indian Policy. Prepared for U.S. De-
partment of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973.
.Indian Affairs: A Study of the Changes in Policy of the
United States Toward Indians. Institute of American Indian Stud-
ies, Brigham Young Univ., 1964.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Annual Report of the Board of In-
dian Commissioners {1869-1933). Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off.
U.S. Department of War. Annual Report of the Secretary of War
{1789-18W). Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
U.S. Department of War, Office of Indian Affairs. Annual Report of
Indian Affairs {1821^-181^9). Washington, D.C., U.S. (ao-A. Print.
Off.
. Reports of the Commissioners of Indian Affairs 1835-1870, 36
Vols. New York, AMS Press, 1970.
Utley, Robert Marshall. Frontier Regulars; the United States Army
and the Indian. New York, Macmillan Co., 1974.
Vaughan, Alden T. New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians.
Boston, Little, Brown, 1965.
99
Viola. Hermfin J. Thomas L. McKenney. Chicago, Sage Books, 197i.
Walter. F. A. '"The Indian Question." The North American Review,
No. 116 (Apr. 1873) : 334-335.
Washburn, Wilcomb E. The American Indian and the United States.
New York, Eandom House, 1973.
. The Indian and the White Man. Garden City, N.Y., Anchor
Books, 1964.
.Bed Man's Land/ White Man^s Law. New York, Scribner.
1971.
Welsh. ''The Meaning of the Dakota Outbreak." Scrihner's Magazine,
No. 4 (Apr., 1891) : 429-452.
White, Eugene E. Service on the Indian Reservations. Little Eock,
Ark., Democrat Co., 1893.
Wilkins, Thurman. Cherokee Tragedy. New York, Macniillan Co.,
1970.
Wissler, Clark. Red Man Reservations. New York, Collier Books, 1971.
Young, Maiy Elizabeth. Redskins, Ru-fjieshirts and Rednecks. Nor-
man. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1961.
Outside of the United States
Canadian Association in Support of the Native Peoples. "Aboriginal
Rights." Bulletin, Vol. 17 (Dec, 1976). Issue devoted to aboriginal
rights.
Indigena and American Friends of Brazil. Supysava, a Documentary
Report on the Conditions of Indian Peoples in Brazil. Berkeley, In-
digena, Inc. and the American Friends of Brazil, 1974.
INIarroquin, Alejandro. Balance del Indigenismo. Mexico City, Inter-
American Indian Institute, 1972.
Stavenhagen, Rodolgo. Agraidan Prohlems and Peasant Movements
in Latin America. Garden City, N.Y., Anchor Books, 1970.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Final Act
of the First I nter- American Conference on Indian Life, held at
Patzcuaro, State of Michoacan, Mexico. April 14-24, 1940. Wash-
ington, 1940.
INTERIOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Department of the Interior. Annual Report of the Secretary of
the Interior. 1849 to date. Washington, U.S.. Govt. Print. Off.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Survey and Review. Audit
Operations Review of Welfare, Guidance and Relocation Activities.
Washington, Apr., 1970.
100
JOHNSON-O'MALLEY ACT
Arizona, Department of Education, Division of Indian Education.
State of Arizona 1975-1976 Arizona Johnson-0''Malley State Edu-
cational Plan. Phoenix, 1975.
"J.O.M. Rip-Oif in Oklahoma." Educational Journal^ Vol. 2 (Aug.,
1973). (Institute for the Development of Indian Law, Washington
D.C.)
Michigan, State Board of Education. Annual Report for tlie State
of Michigan J ohnson-0^ M alley Funds 1972-1973. Lansing, 1973.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian
Education Resources Center. Assistance to Indians Enrolled in
Puhlic Schools; Johnson-0''Malley Regulations : A Progress Report.
(Research and Evaluation Report Series Xo. 15-A.) Albuquerque,
July, 1974.
-. Johnson-0''Malley Annual Report Fiscal Year 1972. Albu-
querque, May, 1975.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Audit and Investigation.
Audit of Bureau of Indian Affairs Johnson-0''Malley Contract No.
EOOC lJi200819 with State of Alaska Department of Education for
Education of Native Children Juneau., Alaska Period July 1972
through June 30^ 1973. Sacramento, May, 1974.
Audit of Bureau of Indian Affairs Johnson-CMalley Con-
tract with the United Tribes of Norih Dakota Development Cor-
poration for the Education of Indian Children in North Dakota
Puhlic Schools Period July i, 1971 through June 30, 1973. Denver,
Aug., 1974.
Evaluation of Contract Proposal for Contract No. 11^2005-
004005 Awarded hy the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the State of
Idaho Department of Education for Johnson-O^Malley Education
Program for Fiscal Year 197^. Sacramento, Feb., 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Survey and Review. Audit
of Bureau of Indian Affairs Contracts with Gallup-McKinley
County Schools and Albuquerque Puhlic Schools for the Educa-
tion of Navajo Students Residing in Federal Dormitories Period
JuVy i, 1969 through June 30., 1971 loith a Partial Audit of Fiscal
Year 1972. Denver, 1972.
Audit of Bureau of Indian Affairs Contracts with t/ie State
of Neto Mexico for the Education of Indian Children in New Mex-
ico Puhlic Schools for the Period July 1. 1969 through June 30., 1971
loith a partial Audit of Fiscal Year 1972. Lat:ewood, Colo., Jan.,
1973.
101
. Audit of Bureau of Iiidian Affairs JoliQison-O^MaUcy Con-
tracts loith the United Sioux Tribes of South Dakota Development
Corporation for the Education of Indian Children in South Dakota
Public Schools dunng the Period July i, 1971 through June 30^ 1973.
Denver, July 1974.
Audit of Johmon-O'Malley Contract No. J 50C 11^9.02328 be-
tween the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Calif oi-nia Tribal Chair-
men's Association., Inc. for the Period Apnl 17., 1973 through
June 30^ 1973 and the Association's Fiscal Year 197 J^ Proposal to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Sacramento, July, 1973.
Audit of Johnson-CPMalley Contracts betioeen the Bureau of
Indian A fairs and the Arizona State Department of Education.,
Phoenix., Arizona^ Period July i, 1969 through June 30., 1971. Sac-
ramento, 1972.
-. Audit of Johnson- CM alley Financicd Assistance to the
Gallup-McKhdey County School District, Gallup., Neio Mexico.,
Period July i, 1969 through Apnil 30, 257^.' Lakewood, Colo., June,
1972.
. Audit of Johnson-CMalley Financial Assistance to the Inde-
pendent School District No. 22, Kirkland, New Mexico, Period
July 1, 1969 through April 30, 1972. Lakewood, Colo., June, 1972.
-. Report on Preaward Audit of Contract Proposal to the Bu-
reau of Indian Affairs by the State of Arizoiui Department of Public
Instruction for the Education of Indian Children Residing in Fed-
eral Dormitones Fiscal Year 1973. Sacramento, Apr., 1973.
U.S. Laws, Statutes. Act of Apr. 16, 193^. (Jolmson-O'Malley Act),
73d Cong., 2d Sess. (25 U.S.C. § 452, 48 Stat. 596).
JURISDICTION
Adams, Roger. Application of the Assimilative Crimes Act on Indian
Reservations. Paper presented at the United States Attorneys' Con-
ference, Phoenix, Ariz., Jan. 27-29, 1975.
Adams, Roger. Problems with the Major Crimes Act Presented by
''United States v. Cleveland'' and ''United States v. Chicago." Paper
presented at United States Attorneys' Conference, Phoenix, Ariz.,
Jan. 27-29, 1975.
Coulter, Tim. Indian Jurisdiction. Washington, Institute for the De-
velopment of Indian Law, 1974.
Fawcett, J. E. S. The Law of Nations. New York, Basic Books, 1968.
France, Floyd, Litigation Involving hulian Tribal and State Juris-
diction. Paper presented at the United States Attorneys' Confer-
ence, Phoenix, Ariz., Jan. 27-29, 1975.
102
. Recent Developments in Indian Civil Litigation. Paper pre-
sented at the United States Attorneys' Conference, Phoenix, Ariz.,
Jan. 27-29, 1975.
Keller, Robert H., Jr., "On Teaching Indian History : Legal Jurisdic-
tion in Chippewa Treaties."' EthnoMstory^ Vol. 19 (Sunnner, 1972) :
209-217.
National .bnerican Indian Court Judges Assn. Justice and the Ameri-
can hulian. Vol. 1 : The Impact of Public Law 280 upon the Admin-
istration of Justice on Indian Reservations; Vol. 2: The Indian
Judiciary and the Concept of Separation of Powers; Vol. 3: The
Effect of Having No Extradition Procedures for Indian Reserva-
tions: Vol. 4: Examination of the Basis of Tribal Law and Order
Authority; Vol. 5: Federal Prosecution of Crimes Committee on
Indian Reservations. Washington, D.C., 1974.
Neal, Albert ]M., Jr. Legal Issues in Indian Jurisdiction. Paper pre-
sented to the Committee on the Office of tlie Attorney General, Na-
tional Assn. of Attorneys General, Raleigh, N.C., Dec. 1974.
Nielsen, George O. The Doctrine of Usurpation of Jurisdiction: Self-
Detennination hy Bootstrap. Paper submitted to Indian Legal
Problems Seminar, Seattle, Univ. of Washinoton Law Library,
1973.
Pauley, Roger. S. Vs Treatment of Federal Jurisdiction over Offenses
in Indian Country. Paper presented at the United States Attorneys'
Conference, Phoenix, Ariz., Jan. 27-29, 1975.
U.S. Department of the Treasury. Taxation of Indian Businesses. Let-
ter from John S. Nolan, Acting Assistant Secretary to Harrison
Loesch. Assistant Secretary, Public Land Management, Depart-
ment of the Interior. July 14, 1970.
U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Law En-
forcement Prohlems on Federal Indian Reservations. Prepared by
Richard Jones. Washington, Sept. 24, 1975.
Waugh, Jack. "A Matter of Jurisdiction : Leased Indian Land in Le-
gal Dispute." Tacoma News Tribune, Nov. 12, 1972.
Public Law 83-280
Poland. Gerald. Retrocession: The Effect upon State Se^^vices in Re-
lation to Indian Tribes., Reservations and Indian People. Paper
submitted to Indian Legal Problems Seminar, Seattle, Univ. of
Washington Law Library, 1973.
France, Floyd. Litigation involving Indian Tribal and State Juris-
diction. PajDer presented at the tJnited States Attorneys' Confer-
ence. Phoenix. Ariz., Jan. 27-29, 1975.
103
Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council. Wisconsin Retrocession Study ^ Pre-
liminary Report. Prepared by Jay O. Fletcher and E. H. Thoenig.
Madison, Wis,, Feb., 1975,
National American Indian Court Judges Association. Justice and the
American Indian. Vol. 1 : The Impact of Public Law 280 upon the
Administration of Criminal Justice on Indian Reservations. Wash-
ington, D.C., 1974.
Nebraska, Legislative Council, Interim Study Committee on Judici-
ary. Report on Indian Retrocession., Legislative Resolution No. 50.
Committee Report No. 226, Vol. III. Lincoln, Jan., 1976.
U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affaii-s.
Background Report on Public Law 280. Committee I'rint, (94th
Cong., 1st Sess, ) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 197d..
U.S. Laws, Statutes. An Act to Confer Jui-isdiction. Approved Aug.
15, 1953, 83d Cong,, 1st Sess, (Public Law 83-280, 18 U. S,C, § 1162.
67 Stat. 588).
LAND
Atkinson, Brooks, "Proposed Dam that Would Violate Treaty with
Senecas Poses Moral Question." llie New York Times., Apr, 12, 1961.
Bledsoe, Samuel. Indian Land Laws. Kansas City, Mo., Vernon Law
Book Co., 1913.
Chaudhuri, Joyotpaul. Native American Title and Public Policy: The
Vanishing Point of American Jurisprudence. Paper presented at
the International Studies Assn. meeting, Toronto, Feb., 1976.
Friends, Philadelphia Yearly ISIeeting of. The Kinzua Dam Contro-
versy., A Practical Solution — Without Shame. Philadelphia, 1961.
LaConrse, Philip. Land Use and Control: An Examination of Who
Has the Authority to Zone Washington Indian Resei^atlons. Paper
submitted to the Indian Legal Problems Seminar, Seattle, Univ. of
Washington Law Libraiy, May, 1971.
National Indian Youth Council. Seneca Project Report., March 17-
Ma.y 5, 196 Jf.. (unpublished) Prepared by Karen Rickard, Shirley
Witt and John Winchester. 1964.
Navajo Nation. Anatomy of the Navajo Indian Reservation : How It
Grew. Prepared by J. Lee Correll and Alfred Dehiya. Window
Rock, Ariz., 1972.
Royce, Charles, comp. Indian Land Cessions in the United States,
Reprint. New York, Arno Press, 1971.
104
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Annual
Report of Indian Lands. Prepared by Lila Jean Addie, Division
of Trust Services. Washington, June 30, 1074.
. Application of Satellite Remote Sensing Data to Land Selec-
tion and Management Activities of Doyon^ Ltd. of Interior Alaska.
Final Report. (BIA Contract No. E00C14201079.) Prepared by
William Stringer, Lewis Shapiro and James Anderson. Washing-
ton, May, 1975.
. Indian Land Tenure., Economic Status and Population
Trends — Part X of the Supplementary Report of the Land Plan-
ning Committee to the Natural Resources Board. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print Off., 1935.
■ . Indians and the Land. Contributions by the Delegation of the
United States, First Inter-American Conference on Indian Life.
Patzcuaro, JSIexico, Apr. 1940. Wasliington, 1940.
Report 071 Purchase of Indian Land and Acres of Indian Land
im. Trust 1931^-1975. Prepared by Theodore W. Taylor for the Office
of Trust Responsibilities. Washington, May, 1976.
U.S. Library of Congress, Environmental Policy Division. National
Land Use Policy Legislation, 93d Congress. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1973.
U.S. Public Land Law Review Commission. One Third of the NatiorCs
Land. Washington, June, 1970.
Wilkinson, Cragun and Barker, Law Offices. B.I. A. Land Management
Activities in South Dakota Criticized. General Memorandum No.
75^9. Washington, Aug. 22, 1975.
Claims
Allis, Samuel. "This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land.-'
Neio Englander, Vol. 23 (Jan., 1977) : 18-23.
LeBlond, David T. Compensable Rights in Orighml Indian Title.
Paper submitted to the Indian Legal Problems Seminar. Seattle,
Univ. of Washington Law Library, June, 1971.
Native American Rights Fund. Indian Claims Commission Decisions.
35 Vols. Boulder, 1973.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. Designation
of Beneficial Owners of the XL Ranch., Modoc County., California.
Memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior. January 3, 1975.
U.S. Indian Claims Commission. Annual Report. Washington, 1975.
105
Leasing
Hughart, David. "Informational Asymmetry, Bidding Strategies, and
the ]\Iarketing of Offshore Petrolemn Leases." Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 83 (Oct., 1975) : 969-986.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Coal Leasing Resolution ^51-75. Fort
Yates, N. Dak.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Annual
Report of Indian Land and Income froin Surface and Subsurface
Leases as of June 30, 1974- Prepared by the Division of Trust Serv-
ices. Washington, 1974.
. Final Environmental Statement Crow Ceded Area Coal Lense,
Tracts II and III, Westmoreland Resources. Billings, Mont., 1976.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. A
Scientific and Policy Review of tlie Federal Environmental Impact
Statement for the Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program of the
Department of the Interior. Prepared by Katherine Fletcher and
Malcolm Baldwin, The Institute of Ecology. Washington, Oct. 29,
1973.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Drg.ft
Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Federal Coal Leasing
Program. 2 Vols. (DES 74-53) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1974.
A Scientific and Policy Revieio of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for tJie Proposed Federal Coal Leasing Program
of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Prepared by Katherine Fletcher, The Institute of Ecology. Wash-
ington, 1974.
U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Competition. Report to
the Federal Trade Commission on Mineral Leasing on Indian Lands.
(draft) Washington, Oct., 1975.
ISIENOMINEE RESTORATION
Native American Rights Fund. The Menominee Restoration Act:
Legal Analysis. Prepared by Charles Wilkinson, Yvonne Knight
and Joseph Preloznik. (National Indian Law Library, Boulders No.
001971) Boulder, 1973.
Shames, Deborah, ed. Freedom ivith Reservation: The Menoininee
Struggle to Save Their Land and People. Madison, Wis., National
Committee to Save the Menominee People and Forests, 1972.
Wisconsin. Department of Health and Social Services, Bureau of
Health Statistics. Menominee County— Births, DeatJis and Popula-
tion 1968-1972. Madison, Oct., 1974.
106
MICRONESIA
Cliowdhuri, Ramendra. International Mandates and T'imsteeship Sys-
tems. The Hague, 1955.
Conference on the History of the Territories of the U.S. The American
Territorial System. Athens, Ohio Univ. Press, 1973.
Fifth Congress of Micronesia. Report of the Eastern District Subcom-
mittee to the Joint Committee on Future Status. 1973.
Fifth Congress of Micronesia. Report on the United Nations Trustee-
ship Council., Fortieth Session, 1973. 1974.
Fifth Congress of Micronesia. Report of the Westei'n Distnct Sub-
committee to the Joint Committee on Future Status. 1973.
Heine, Carl. Micronesia at the Crossroads. Australian National Univ.
■ Press, 1974.
Kahn, Ely. A Reporter in Micronesia. New York, Norton & Co., 1966.
McHenry, Donald, Micronesia: Ti'ust Betrayed. New York, Carnegie
Mink, Patsy. "A Call for Self-Government : 'Idyllic' Islands and the
Interests of a Superpower." The Los Angeles Times, May 3, 1976.
Pearse, Richard and Keith Bezanson. Education and Modernization
in Micronesia: A Case St'ody in Development and Development
Planning. Stanford Univ., 1971.
Rich, Spencer. "Marianas Acquisition is Voted." The Washington
Post, Feb. 25, 1976.
United Nations Trusteeship Council. Report of the United Nations
Visiting Mission to the Trust Temtory of the Pacific Islands. New
York, 1970. 217 pp.
United Nations Trusteeship Council. Report of the United Nations
Visiting Mission to the Trv,st Territory of the Pacific Islands. New
York, 1973. 130 pp.
U.S. Office of Micronesian Status Negotiations. The Future Political
Status of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. 7 Vols. Wash-
ington.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Adelman, M. A. The World Petroleum Market. Baltimore, The
Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972.
Callaway, D. G., J. E. Levy and E. B. Henderson. "The Effect of
Power Production and Strip Mining on Local Navajo Populations."
Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin, No. 22 (June, 1976) : 114 pp.
107
Cox, J. C. and A. W. Wrigiit. "The Determinants of Investment in
Petroleum Eeserves and Their Implications for Public Policy."
American Economic Review, Vol. 66 (Mar., 1076) : 153-167.
Environmental Policy Center. Facts About Coal in the United States.
Prepared by John L. McCormick. Washington, D.C., Feb., 1975.
36 pp.
Ford Foundation, Energy Policy Project. Exf>loring Energy Choices:
A Preliminary Report. Washington, D.C., 197-1.
Environmental Studies Board. Rehahilitation Potential of Western
Coal Lands. Cambridge, Mass. Ballinger Pub, Co., 1974.
Gordon, Suzanne. Black Mesa: The Angel of Death. New York, John
Day Co., 1973.
"Indian Coal Fight Tests U.S. Policies." The Washington Post.,
June 11, 1973.
Kentfield, Calvin, "New Showdown in the West." The New York
Kolstad, Charles. The 1975 Energy Production System in the States
of the Rochy Mountain Region. (LA-6621:) Los Alamos, N. j\Iex.,
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory of the Univ. of California, Dec,
1976.
Leland, Hayne E. Optimal Risk Sharing and the Leasing of Natural
Resources ., with Application to Oil and Gas Leasing on the 00 S.
(Working Paper No. 38, Eesearch Program in Finance, Graduate
School of Business Administration, Univ. of California) Berkeley,
Dec, 1975.
Lipton, Charles J. Fiscal Aspects of Negotiating Third World Min-
eral Development Agreements. Paper presented at the lOitli x\nnual
]\Ieeting for the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and
Petroleum Engineers, Feb. 18, 1975.
National Coal Association. Bituminous Coal Facts. Washington, D.C.,
1972.
National Congress of American Indians. Proceedings., Indian Energy
Conference., August £S, £9, 1974. Billings, Montana (unj)ublished).
Washington, D.C. 1974.
Robbins, Lynn. "The Impact of Power Developments on the Navajo
Nation." Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin, No. 7 (Apr.,
1975) :22 pp.
Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. Institute on Indian Land
Develoj)ment — Oil, Gas, Coal and Other Minerals. A Conference at
the Brannif Place Hotel, Tucson, Ariz., Apr. 1-2, 1976.
108
Smith, David N. and Louis T. Wells, Jr. Negotiating Third 'World
Mineral Agreements : Promises as Prologue. Cambridge, Mass., Bal-
linger Publishing Co., 1975.
Stacks, John F. Stripping. San Francisco, Sierra Club, 1972.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Final Environmental Statement.
Proposed Development of Coal Resources in the Eastern Powder
River Goal Basin of Wyoming. 6 Vols. Washington, Oct. 18, 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Scientific and Policy Review of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Federal
Coal Leasing Program of the Bureau of Land Management. Pre-
pared by Katherine Fletcher, The Institute of Ecology. Washing-
ton, D.C., 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Alffairs. Projected
Coal Development Crow Indian Reservations., Draft Programmatic
Environmental Statement. (DES75-2) Washington, 1975.
. Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Cherokee
Indian Reservation, Jackson and Swain Counties., North Carolina.
Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bureau of Mines. (Administrative
Report BIA-6) Washincrton, 1975.
. Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Colville In-
dian Reservation., Washington. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bu-
reau of JMines (Administrative Report BIA-5) Washington, 1975.
. Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Crow Indian
Reservation , Montana. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bureau of
Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-7) Washington, 1975.
Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Fond du Lac,
Grand Portage. Leech Lake., Mille Lacs, Nett Lake., and White Earth
Indian Reservations., Minnesota. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bu-
reau of JMines for the B.I.A. (Administrative Report BIA-1) Wash-
ington, 1975.
Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Gila Bend,,
Papago., and San Xavier Indian Reservations^ Arizona. Prepared
by U.S.G.S. and the Bureau of Mines. (Administrative Report
BIA-9) Washington, 1975.
Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Northern
Cheyenne Indian Reservation^^ Montana. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and
the Bureau of Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-3) Washington,
1975.
Status of Mitieral Resource Information for the Red Lake In-
dian Reservation, Minnesota. Prepared by U.S^G.S. and the Bureau
of Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-2) Washington, 1975.
109
— — . Status of Mineral Resource I^iformation for tJie /Spokane In-
dian Reservation, Washington. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bu-
reau of Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-10) Washington, 1975.
. Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Unitah and
Ouray Reservations, Utah. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bureau of
Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-i) Washington, 1975.
-. Status of Mineral Resource Information for tJie Wind River
Indian Reservation, Wyoming. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bu-
reau of Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-8) Washington, 1975.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Minerals Year-
book 1972. Vol. I : Metals, Minerals and Fuels ; Vol. II : Area Re-
ports : Domestic. Washington, 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. El Paso Coal
Gasification Project, New Mexico Draft Environmental Statement.
(DES 74-77) Washington, July 16, 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Adminis-
trative Report: A Cursory Review of Potential Mineral Occurrences
on Indian Lands. Washington, Nov. 18, 1974.
Anomolous Concentrations of Several Metals in Iron-Forma-
tion of the Blue Lead Mountain Area, Pennington County, South
Dakota. Prepared by W. H. Raymond, R. U. King and J. J. Norton.
(Geological Survey Circular 707) Washington, 1975.
. Classification of Lands on Colville Indian Reservation. Wash-
ington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973.
. Comments on the Findings and Recommendations of the
OA & I Audit Report of June 9, 1975, entitled, "Review of Royalty
Accounting System for Onshore Oil and Gas Leases, Geological Sur-
vey." Washington, June 12, 1975.
. Federal a/nd Indian Lands Coal, Phosphate, Potash, Sodium,
and Other Mineral Production Royalty Income and Related Statis-
tics, Fiscal Year 1975. Washington, Mar., 1976.
. Federal and. Indian Lands Oil and Gas Production, Royalty
Income and Related Statistics, Calendar Year 1971^.. Washington,
June, 1975.
Geology of Epigenetic Uranium Deposits in Sandstone in the
United States. Prepared by Warren I. Finch. (Geological Survey
Professional Paper 538) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1967.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Energy, Minerals
and Industry. First Year Work Plan for a Technology Assessment
of Western Energy Resource Development, Socioeconomic Environ-
no
ment Studies Services. (EPA-600/5-75-001) Washington, :Mar.,
1976.
U.S. Federal Energy Administration. Initial Report on Oil and Gas
Resources^ Reserves and Productive Capacities. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., June, 1975.
Project Independence: A Summary^ Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., Nov., 1974.
Project Independence Report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., Nov., 1974.
-. The Natural Gas Shortage : A Preliminary Report Washing-
ton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Aug., 1975.
U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Competition, Bureau of
Economics. Report to the Federal Trade Corrvmission on Federal
Energy Land Policy: Eficiency^ Revenue., and Competition. Oct.,
1975.
Ziontz, Alvin J. Indian Self-Determinaton: New Patterns for Min-
eral Development. (Paper 13.) Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foun-
dation, 1976.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Americans for Indian Opportunity. Real Choices in Indian Resource
Development. Report presented at Reston Conference, Reston, Va..
Sept, 16-18, 1974. Washington, 1974.
. Real Choices in Indian Resource Development: Alternatives
to Leasing. Report presented at Billings Conference, Jan. 30-Feb. 1,
1975. Washington, 1975.
. A Question of Power: Indian Control of Indian Resource
Development. Report presented at Racine Conference, Racine, Wis.,
Sept. 21-23, 1975. Washington, 1975.
-. A Violation of Trust? Federal Management of Indian Forest
Lands. A.I.O. Red Paper prepared by Rich Nafziger. Washington,
Mar. 3, 1976.
California. Senate. Subcommittee on Indian Affairs. Senate Fact
Finding Committee on Natural Resources. Sacramento, Senate of
the State of Calif., Jan., 1961.
Gaffney, Mason, ed. Extrative Resources and Taxation. Madison,
Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1967.
Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. "Indians and Environmentalists." The New
York Times, Nov. 27, 1975.
Ill
U.S. Natural Resources Board. A Report on National Planning and
Puhlic Works in Relation to National Resources Including Land
Use and Water Resources with Findings and Recommendations.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1934.
Univ. of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences. "The Benefits
and Costs to Landowners f rom" Geothermal Lease and Develop-
ment." Cooperative Extension Bulletin No. 1876 (1976).
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, U.S. (O.E.O.)
Indian Opportumties: A Summary of Indian Participation in O.E.O.
Programs. Compiled bv Univ. Consortium: Arizona State-Utah-
South Dakota. 1968.
LT.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. Self -Determination: A Pro-
gram of Accomplishments. Arizona Affiliated Tribes, IMay, 1971.
U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, Community Action Program.
Green Poioer: Consumer Action for the Poor. Washington, Aug.,
1969.
OKLAHO^Ii^
Harlow, Victor Emmanuel, Oklahoma History. Norman, Okla., Har-
low Publishing Corp., 1967.
Oklahoma Laws, Statutes. Constitution of Oklalioma. Articles 10, 25.
U.S. Laws, Statutes. Oklahonm Organic Act. Approved May 2, 1890
(43 U.S.C. § 1091, 26 Stat. 81).
PREFERENCE, INDIAN
Funkp, Karl. "Education Assistance and Employment Preference:
Who is an Indian?'- Vol. IV. No. 1. American Indian Law Revieio
(1975).
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health
Service. Distribution of Ftdl-Time Employment as of December 31^
1973. Revised Feb. 13, 1974. Prepared by Financial Management
Branch. (Mimeo) Washington, 1974.
. Distrihution of Fidl-Time Em^ployinent as of December 31^
197Ji. Prepared bv JFinancial Management Branch. Washington,
Feb. 6, 1975.
. Distribution of Full-Time Employment as of December 31.,
1975. Prepared bv Financial Management Branch. Washington,
Feb. 24, 1976.
Report on Employment and Indian Preference in the Indian
Health Service. Prepared bv the National Indian Health Board.
(HIS Basic Ordering Agreement No. HSA 80-74-588, Task Order
No. 4.) Denver, Dec. 15. 1974.
112
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian Pref-
erence — A Preference to Conduct Self-Govemment. Prepared by
F. Browning Pipestem for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
(Mimeo) Washington, 1968.
-. Itidian Preference Policy. Memorandum to Area Directors,
Central Office Directors. July 11, 1975.
U.S. Department of Interior, Office of the Solicitor. Definition of
'■'' Indian''"' for Preference Eligihility. Memorandum to Commissioner
of Indian Affairs, Apr. 10, 1975.
RECOGNITION
Chamberlain, Tony. '"Vanishing Americans." Boston Globe., Oct. 5,
1975. p. 14.
Barber, Carroll. Trilingualism in Pascua: The Social Functions of
Language in an Arizona Yaqui Village. M.A. thesis, Univ. of Ari-
zona, Tuscon, 1952.
Downs, Ernest C. A Recognizable Tunica Indian Comrrmnity ; Docu-
mentation of the Tunica-Biloxi-Ofo'Avoyel Gormrmnity near
Marhsville., Louisiana. Institute for the Development of Indian
Law, Washington, D.C., 1976.
Dumanoski, Dianne. ''Battling to Regain a Lost Past." The Boston
Phoenix^ Aug. 26, 1975.
Maine. Treaty with the Penobscot Tribe of Indians., August 17., 1820.
(970.3, p. 41) Bangor, Bangor Public Library.
Massachusetts. Report to the Governor and Council Concerning the
Indians of the Commonwealth. Under the Act of April 6. 1859.
Boston, William White, Printer to the State. 1861.
Massachusetts. Treaty with the Penobscot Tribe of Indian.^. June 29,
1818. Bangor, Bangor Public Library.
Native American Rights Fund. Federal Recognition and the Passama-
quoddy Decision. Prepared by Thomas Tureen. Washington, D.C.,
1976.
Small Tribes of Western Washington (STO^VAV). Position Paper
on the Federal Recognition Issue. Sumner, Wash., 1975.
. Petition of the Steilacoom Tribe of Indians to the Secretary^ of
the Interior for Formal Federal Recognition as an Indian Tribe.
Sumner, Wash., 1975.
-. Petition of the Cowlitz Trihe of Indians to the Secretary of
the Interior for Federal Recognition as a Recognized Indian Tribe.
Sumner, Wash., Sept. 22, 1975.
113
Spicer, Edward H, Pascua: A Taqui Village in Arizona. Chicago.
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1940.
-. "Potam : A Yaqui Village in Sonora.'' American Anthropolog-
ical Assn.^ Vol. 56 (1954). Memoir #77.
Tamarin, Alfred H. We Have Not Vanished: Eastern Indians of the
United States. Chicago, Follett Pub. Co., 1974.
Tiger, Ellen D. Federal Recognition of Northwest Treaty Tribes: An
Arbitrary Policy. Paper submitted to Indian Legal Problems Semi-
nar, Univ. of Washington Law Library, Spring, 1972.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Noith Carolina Advisory Commit-
tee. Economic and Political Problems of Indians in Robeson County.
Washington, July, 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bur-eau of Indian Affairs, Portland
Area Office. Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes. Memorandum
to CoiTLinissioner of Indian Affairs. Portland, Oreg., 1973.
U.S. Laws, Statutes. An Act to provide for the conveyance of certain
land of the United States to the Pascua Yaqui Assn. Approved
Oct. 8, 1964, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (Private Law 88-350) .
Washington, Governor's Indian Advisorj- Council, Non-Reservation
Council. Position Paper and Recommendation Regarding Federal
Recognition. Olympia, July 12, 1976.
Willard, William. The Coinmunity Development Worker in an Ari-
zona Yaqui Project. M.A. thesis, L^niv. of Arizona, Tucson, 1970.
SOVEREIGNTY
Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Indian Sovereignty.
Washington, D.C. 1975.
Vattel, M. de. The Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Na-
ture., Applied to the Conduct and Ajfairs of Nations and Sovereigns.
Philadelphia, T. and J. W. Johnson & Co., 1863.
STATE-INDIAN RELATIONS
Arizona, Commission on Indian Affairs. Survey of the San Carlos
Reservation. Phoenix.
California, State Advisory Commission on Indian Affairs. Final Re-
port to the Governor and the Legislature. Sacramento, 1969.
California, Department of Housing and Community Development. A
Report With Recommendations on State Governmental Organiza-
tion and Legislative Histoid of California Indians. Sacramento,
June, 1974.
114
Maine, Department of Indian Affairs. State of Maine: A Gominla-
tion of Laws Pertaining to Indians. Augusta, Jan., 1974.
Minnesota, Indian Affairs Commission. Report to the Eonordble Har-
old LeVander., Governor of Minnesota^ and the Members of the Min-
nesota Legislature. Lansing, 1969.
Oregon. Legislative Assembly. Senate Bill 386, Establishes ll-Memher
Commission on Indian Services. Salem, 1975.
South Dakota, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.
Where We'' re At. . . . Statistical Report on the Status of Minori-
ties and Women in South Dakota. Prepared by ]Mary Ellen Mc-
Eldowney. Pierre, 1973.
South Dakota. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 7. For Detailed
Study of Indian-State Kelations. Pierre, 1973.
South Dakota, Office of the Governor. Executive Order 73-8, Creat-
ing a Task Force on Indian-State Relations. Pierre, June 11, 1973.
South Dakota, Task Force on Indian-State Relations. Report.
Pierre, June 30, 1974.
Southwestern Indian Development, Inc. A Proposal to PJioenix City
Government, the Phoenix City Council, Mayor John Driggs, Phoe-
nix City Manager and All Concerned Residents of the City of
Phoenix Regarding the Proposed 1972-1973 Federal Revenue Shar-
ing Budget Recommendations and the Unmet Needs and Growing
Discontent within the Phoenix Indian Communitv. Phoenix, Ariz.,
1972.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Maine Advisory Committee. Fed-
eral and State Services and the Maine Indian. Washington, Dec,
1974.
U.S. Statutes, Laws. An Act to Establish the Territorial Government
of Washington. Approved Mar. 2, 1853 (10 Stat. 172) .
Washington, Governor's Indian Affairs Task Force. The People
Speah: Will You Listen? Olympia, 1973.
TAXATION
Fidell, Eugene R. Taxes, Development and American Indians, Bach-
ground Policy and Alternatives. Paper submitted to Seminar on
Tax Reform, Cambridge. ^lass., Harvard Univ. Law Librarv, Apr.
15, 1968.
Native American Rights Fund. Indian Taxation, Tribal Sovereignty
and Economic Development. Prepared by Daniel Israel and Thomas
Smithson. (National Indian Law Library), Boulder, Colo., 1972.
115
U.S. Bureau of the Census. A Report on Indians Tcxxecl and Indians
Not Taxed in the United States at the Eleventh Census, 1890. Pub-
lished 1894. Eeprint, New York, AMS Press, 1970.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Arizona
State Indian Seminar. Subcommittee Report on Taxation and Serv-
ices to Arizona Reservation Indians. Phoenix, 19T3.
Wliite, Jay Vincent. Taxing Those lliey Found Here. Washington,
D.C., Institute for the Development of Indian Law, 1972.
TER]SnNATION
Bunting, David and W. T. Trulove. Sonne Experiences with Guaran-
teed Incomes and Lump Sum Payments : The Case of the Klamath
Indians. Paper presented to the American Assn. for the Advance-
ment of Science, Dec. 20, 1970.
Embry, Carlos. America's Concentration Camps: the Facts about
Our Indian Reservations Today. New York, D. McKay, 1956.
Fey, Harold. "Lidian Rights and American Justice." The Christian
Centuiyj. Reprints Chicago, Christian Century Foundation, 1955.
-. "Our National Indian Policy." The Christian Century., Yol.
72 (Mar. 30, 1955).
Management Specialists. Klamath Indian Tribe; Tentative Manage-
ment Plan, Vol 1, 1957. (mimeo) Eugene, Univ. of Oregon Special
Collections.
Mobley, Keith. The Klamath Indians : Federal Trusteeship 186 1^-195 J^.
Department of Economics, Univ. of Oregon Project: The liquida-
tion of a Southern Oregon Indian Reservation, 1971.
Oregon, Department of Education. Termination and the Klamath
Indian Education Program, 1955-61. Compiled by Hiroto Zakoji.
Salem, 1961.
Ray, Verne. The Klamath Indians and. Their Forest Resources. In-
dian Claims Commission Plaintiffs Exhibits R-1, Docket No. 100-
B-2, Washington, D.C., 1973.
Sayers, Jerome and John Volkman. A Statistical Profle of tJw Can-
federated Tnbes of Siletz Indians. Portland, Oreg., Center for
Urban Education, Jan., 1976.
Stanford Research Institute. Preliminary Planning for Termination
of Federal Control over the Klamath ^Tnhe. (Project No. 1-1440)
Apr., 1956.
Stern, Theodore, The Klamath Tnbe. Seattle, Univ. of Washington
Press, 1965.
116
Tnilove, W. T. and David Bunting. The Economics of Paternalism:
Federal Policy and the KlamatJi Indians. Paper presented at the
46th Annual Convention Western Economics Assn., Simon Fraser
Univ., Biirnabv, B.C., Canada, Aug. 30, 1971.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Proi
WitJidrawal of Federal Responsibilities over the Property and Af-
fairs of the Indians of ^Vestern Oregon. Prepared by E. Morgan
Prj^se, Director, Portland Area Ofnce. Dec, 1953. (National
Archives of the U.S.. Senate, Kecord Group 46)
-. Withdratoal of Federal Supervision Grande Ronde and Siletz
Jui'i.sdietion, State of Oregon. Eeport by E. Morgan Pryse, Port-
land Area Office. Portland, Jan. 11, 1952.
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, Commis-
sioner. Withdraioal Prograrwrning. Memorandum to all Bureau offi-
cials. Aug. 5, 1952.
General Position of the Bureau loith Respect to Withdrawal.
jNIemorandum to all Area Directors, Oct. 10, 1952.
. Report on Expediting Transfer of Bureau of Indian Affairs
Education Responsibilities. Memorandum to all Area Directors,
Feb. 19, 1953.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. Status of
Neic York Indians. Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Af-
fairs (D-65-1130.9), May 12, 1965.
Watkins, Arthur. "Termination of Federal Supervision of Indians."
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences.,
Vol. 311, 1957.
TEEATIES
All Indian Pueblo Council. The Right to Remain Indian; the Failure
of the Federal Government to Protect Indian Land and Water
Rights.
Crandall, Samuel Benjamin. Treaties, Their Making and Enforce-
ment. New York, Columbia Univ. Press, Macmillan Co., agents,
1904.
Fay, George. Treaties and Land Cessions Betioeen the Bands of the
SioKx and the United States of America. (Colorado State College
Occasional Publications in Anthropology. Ethnology Series, No. 1.)
Greeley, Colorado State College Press, 1972.
Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Treaties and Agree-
ments. Vols. : Southwest, Five Civilized Tribes, Eastern Oklahoma,
Great Lakes Region, Chippewa Indians, Northern Plains, and
Pacific Northwest. The American Indian Treaties Series. Vol. 1-A,
Chronological List of Treaties and Agreements made by Indian
Tribes in the United States, Washington, D.C., 1973.
117
Kappler, C. and J. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. 4 Vols. Wash-
ington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
McNair, Arnold Duncan. The Law of Treaties. Oxford, England, Ox-
ford Univ. Press, 1961.
Snow, Alplieus Henry. The Question of Aho7igines in the Law and
Practice of Nations. New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1921.
Stevens, Isaac I. The Treaty Between the United States and the
D'waniish., SuqvMmish^ and Other Allied and Subordinate Tribes of
Indians in Washington Territoinj. 1855. Seattle, Shorey Publica-
tion?, 1971.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office
of Trust Responsibilities. The Role of Trustee — How Shall the
Govei^vtnent Serve? Prepared by Martin E. Seneca, Jr. Washing-
ton, 1974.
Vatell, Emmerich de. The Law of Nations. Philadelphia, T. and J.
W. Johnson & Co., 1857.
Walker, F. A. "The Indian Question." The North American Review.,
Vol. 116 (Apr., 1973) : 329-888.
"Wliarton, Francis. A Digest of the International Law of the United
States. Vols. 1-3. Washington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1886.
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
Geneil\l
Eastern Band of Cherokecs, Cherokee Tribal Government. Cherokee
Progress and Challenge. Cherokee, N.C., 1971.
Fay, George E. Charters, C onMiUitions and By-Laws of Indian Tribes
of North Arnerica. (Colorado State Occasional Publications in An-
throix>logy. Ethnology Series, No. 1.) Greeley, Colorado State Col-
lege Press, 1967.
Grant, James B. Indian Justice Planning Project, 1971 (Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah). Santa Fe, N. Mex., National Indian
Justice Planning Association, 1971.
Hargrett, Lester. A Bibliography of the Constitutions and Laws of
the Amencan Indians. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univ. Press,
1947.
Israel. Daniel H, The Reemergence of Trihal Nationalism. Boulder,
Colo. Native American Rights Fund, 1976.
Kent, Calvin A. and Johnson, Jeriy W. Flow of Funds on the Ya^ihton
Sioux Indian Reservation. Mimieapolis, Ninth District Federal Re-
serve Bank, June, 1976.
118
National American Indian Court Judges Assn. Justice and the Ameri-
can Indian^ Vol. 4 : Examination of the Basis of Tribal Law and
Order Authority. Washington, D.C., 1974. 85 pp.
Noon, John A. The Law ami Government of the Grand River Iro<2uois.
1949. Reprinted. New York, Jolmson Reprint Corp., 1970.
Parker, Alan. Indian Tribes as Governments. American Indian Law-
yer Training Program, Washington, D.C. New York, John Hay
Whitney Foundation, 1975.
Rosenthal, Betty. Indian Leadership in Neio England, 1973. Lexing-
ton, jMass., Intercultural Studies Group, 1973.
Tribal Courts
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. A Model
Code for Tribal Courts. Report, Apr., 1975 (FF ) . 112 pp.
National American Indian Court Judges Assn. Justice and the Ameri-
can Indian., Vol. 2 : The Indian Judiciary and the Concept of Sepa-
ration of Powers. Washington, D.C, 1974.
TRUST RELATIONSHIP
Snow, Henry. The Question of Aborigine in the Law mrd Practice of
Nations. (Study for the Department of State) Washington, D.C,
1921.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Staff Memorandum: Constitutional
Status of American Indians. Office of Information and Publications,
Washington, 1973.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of
Investments. Report Regarding Indian Trust Funds. Albuquerque,
1975.
URBAN AND RURAL INDIANS
"American Indian Relocation : Problems of Dcpendencv and jManago-
ment in the City." Phylon (Winter, 1965) : 362-371.
Chadwick, Bruce A., Howard M. Bahr and Joseph M. Stauss. Indian-
White Relationships in the Metropolis: The Seattle Case. Depart-
ment of Sociology, Washington State Univ., 1975.
Craig, Gregory W., Arthur M. Harkins and Richard G. Woods. Indian
HoiLsing in Minneapolis and Saint Paid. Minneapolis, Training
Center for Community Programs, Univ. of JSIinnesofca, 1969.
Drilling, Laveme, Arthur M. Harkins and Richard G. Woods. The
Indian Relief Recipient in Minneapolis: An Exploratory Study.
Minneapolis, Training Center for Communitv Programs, Univ. of
IMinnesota, 1969.
119
Frantz, Charles. The Vr'han Migration and Adjustment of American
Indians Since lOJiO. Haverford, Pa., Department of Sociology,
Ilaverford College, 1951.
Ilarkins, Arthur :M. and Eichard G. Woods. The Social Programs and
Political Styles of Minneapolis Indian: An Interim Report. Min-
]ieapolis, Training Center for Community Programs, Univ. of
Minnesota, 1969.
Gaillard, Frve. "Cities Contradict Lumbers' Values." Race Relations
Reporter, Vol. 2 (June 21, 1971) : 6-9.
Gibbons, Richard, et al. Iiulian Americans in South Side Minneapolis.
Additional Field Notes from the Urban Slum. Minneapolis, Train-
ing Center for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
Goodner, James. Indian Americans in Dallas: Migrations., Missions
and Styles of Adaptation. Minneapolis, Training Center for Com-
munity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1969.
Harkins, A. and R. Woods. Attitudes of Minneapolis Agency Person-
nel Toward Urhan Indians. Minneapolis, Training Center for Com-
munity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1968.
, Indian Americans in Duluth: A Summary and Analysis of
Recent Research. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community
Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
Harkins, Arthur M., I. Karon Sherarts and Richard G. Woods. The
Teachers of Minneapolis Junior High School Indian Children: A
Second '•'■Prohlem SchooV Minneapolis, Training Center for Com-
munity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
Ilarkins, Arthur M., Mary L. Zemyan and Richard G. Woods. Indian
Americans in Omaha and Lincoln. Minneapolis, Training Center
for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
Hippler, Arthur E. From Village to Town: An Intermediate Step in
the Accidturation of Alaska Eskimos. Minneapolis, Training Cen-
ter for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
Hodge, William. The Albuquerque Navajos. Tucson, Univ. of Ari-
zona Press, 1969.
Madigan, LaV. The American Indian Relocation Program. Report
for Assn. on American Indian Affairs, Inc. Dec, 1956.
Nagata, Shuichi. Modern Transformations of Meonhopi Peuhlo. Ur-
bana, Univ. of Illinois Press, 1970.
National Indian Training and Research Center. Urhan Indian Study;
A Phoenix Urhan Study of Indian People-s Opinions and Attitudes,
Demography and Population Density. Tempe, Ariz., 1971.
120
Neils, Elaine M. Reservation to City: Irulian Migration and Federal
Relocation. Chicago, D<,'partment of Geography, Univ. of Chicaso.
1971.
Neog, Prafulla. The Cldcago Imlians: The Effects of Urhan Migra-
tion. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Programs, Univ.
of Minnesota, 1970.
Price, John A. American Indians in Los Angeles: A Study of Adap-
tations to a City. (Papers of the 1966 U.C.L.A. Ethnographic Field
School) Los Angeles, 1966.
Skobroten and Wolens. Indians of the Urban Slums: Field Notes
from Minneapolis. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community
Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
Smucker, Barbara Claassen. Wigivam in the City. (1st ed.) New York,
Button, 1966.
Snyder, Peter. Social Assimilation arul Adjustment of Navajo Mi-
grants to Denver, Colorado. (Navajo Urban relocation Research
Project No. 13) Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Sciences, Univ.
Suttles, Gerald. The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Terri-
tory in the Inner City. Chicago, IJniv. of Chicago Press, 1968.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Rural Poverty ami Regional Progress in
an Urban Society^ Fourth Report of the Task Force on Ecnomic
Growth and Opportunity^ Washington, D.C., 1969.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Minnesota Advisory Committee.
Bridging the Gap: The Twin Cities Native American Community^
Washington, 1975.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Rural
Indian Americans in Poverty. Prepared by Helen Johnson, Wash-
ington, 1969.
U.S. Departmet of Health, Education, and Welfare, Administration
on Aging. Economic and Social Problems of the Elderly Urban In-
dian in Phoenix, AHzona. Prepared bv Hirsh Kaplan and Benjamin
J.^ Taylor. (RHEW, SRS Research Grant Xo. 93-P-750-11/9-04)
Wasliington, 1972.
, Research Results Concerning the Economic and Social Prob-
lems of the Elderly Urban Indian in Phoenix, Arizona. Prepared
by R. D. Eck and R. D. St. Louis. (RHEW, SRS Research Grant
No. AA-4-70-063-03) Washington, 1972.
U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Survey and Review. Review
of Welfare^ Guidance and Relocation Activities, Bureau of Indian
Affairs. Washington, 1970.
121
U.S. Vice President, National Council on Indian Opportunity
(NCIO). Pnhlic Forum hefore the Committee on Urban Indians in
Dallas^ Texas of the National Council on Indian Opportunity.
Washington, 1969.
. Public Forum before the Committee on Urban Indians in Los
Angeles^ California of the National Council on Indian Opportunity.
Washington, 1968.
. Public Forum before the Committee on Urban India,ns in Min-
neapolis-St. Paul., Minnesota of the National Council on Indian
Opportunity. Washington, 1969.
. Public Forum before the Committee on Urban Indians in
Phoenix., Arizmm. of the National Council on Indian Opportunity.
Washington, 1969. '
Public Forum before the Committee on Urban Indians in San
Francisco., California of the National Council on Indian Oppor-
tunity. Washington, 1969.
Waddell, Jack O. American Indian Urbanization. Lafayette, Ind., In-
stitute for the Study of Social Change, Purdue Univ., 1973.
Waddell, Jack O. and Michael Watson. The American Indian in
Urban Society. Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1971.
Weppner, Robert, The Economic Absorption of Navajo Indian Mi-
grants to Denver., Colorado. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Univ. of Colorado, 1968.
White, Robert A. Summary Progress Report: The Development of
Collective Decision Making Capacity in an American Indian Com-
munity. St. Louis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, St.
Louis Univ., 1970.
Woods, Richard G. and Arthur M. Harkins. An Examination of the
1968-1969 Urban Indian Hearings Held by the National Council on
Indian Opportunity. Part I : Education ; Part II : Interracial As-
pects; Part III: Indian Self-Definitions; Part IV: The Indian
Center. IMinneapolis, Training Center for Community Programs,
Univ. of Minnesota, 1971.
. Indian Americans in Chicago. Minneapolis, Training Center
for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1968.
. Indian Employment in Mimiesota. IMinneapolis, Training Cen-
ter for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1968.
-. A Review of Recent Research on Minneapolis Indians : 1968-
1969. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Programs,
Univ. of Minnesota, 1969.
122
Woods, Richard G. and Arthur M. Harkins. Rural and City Indians
in Minnesota Prisons. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community
Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
Zemyan, Mary and Arthur Harkins. Educational and Related Charac-
teristics of Urhan Indians in the United States : A Selective Sum-
mary of 1960 Census Data. Minneapolis, Training Center for Com-
munity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970.
WATER RESOURCES
"The American Indian and the Land— 1974." Part 2: The Indian
Water Wars. Education Journal^ Voh 2, No. 7 (1975) (Institute for
the Development of Indian Law. Washington, D.C.)
Anderson, Alison. "An Expendable People : Power and Water in the
American Southwest." Ecologist^ Vol. 5 (Aug.-Sept. 1975) : 237-
240.
Federal Energy Administration. Project Independence. Water Re-
sources Council. ^Yater Requirements^ Availabilities^ Constraints
and Recommended Federal Actions. Nov., 1974.
Kiechel, Walter, Jr. Summary of Landmark Cases on Indian Water
Rights. Paper presented at the United States Attorneys' Confer-
ence, Jan. 28-29, 1975. Phoenix, Ariz.
Kelso, Maurice M. Water Supplies and Economic Growth in an Arid
Environment. Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1973.
Mann, D., G. Weatherford and P. Nichols. "Legal-Political History
of Water Resource Development in the Upper Colorado River
Basin," No. 4, Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin, National
Science Foimdation, Sept., 1974. 53 pp.
Mann, Dean E. The Politics of Water in Arizona. Tucson, Univ. of
National Water Commission. New Directions in U.S. Water Policy:
Summary^ Conclusions and Recommendations. Wasliington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1973.
U.S. Armv, Corps of Engineers. Cheyenne River, S. Dakota, and
Wyoming. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1932.
. Cho/enne River: Flood Control, Power Development, Irri-
■ 1932.
. White River and Tributaries, South Dakota and Nebraska.
June, 1973. 50 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. San Juan-
Chama and Navajo Indian Projects. Letter. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1960.
123
. Supplemental Report^ Congos Division: San Luis Valley
Project Report No. 5-101-1. Rio Grande Basin, Colo. Branch of
Project Planning. Washington, 1947.
. Supplemental Report on Rio Grande and Weminuche Pass
Divisions. San Luis Valley Project, Colo. Division of Planning,
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1955.
Water and Land Resource AccojnplishTnents^ 1973 Summary
Report. Washington, Sept. 11, 1974.
Veeder, William H. Federal Encroachment on Indian Water Rights
and the Impairment of Reservation Development. 91st Cong., 1st
Sess., Joint Committee Print; Toward Economic Development for
Native American Communities, Vol. 2, Part II: Development Pro-
grams and Plans. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1969.
Viessman, Warren. San Juan-Ohama and Navajo Indian Projects:
Related Impacts in the San Juan River Basin. June 12, 1975. 64 pp.
Wardlaw, Rebecca E. "The Irrigable Acres Doctrine." Natural Re-
sources Journal., Vol. 15 (Apr., 1975) : 375-384.
SPECIAL MATERIALS
BIBLIOGRAPHIES
.'An Account of Conferences Held, and Treaties Made, "between Major-
Goieral Sir William Johnson, Dart., and the Chief Sachems and
Wairriors of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, etc. Lancaster, Pa.,
Lancaster Press Inc., 1930.
BreAvton, Berry, Comp. The Education of AmeHcan Indians, A Sur-
vey of the Literature. (Committee print, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 1969.)
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1969.
I Columbia Univ. Index Digest of State Constitutions. (2d ed.), New
York, 1959.
. Expert Testimony hefore the Indian Claims Commission. Index to
the Expert Testimony hefore tJie Indian Claims Commission. New
York, Clearwater Pub., Co., 1973.
Fenton, William Nelson. American Indian and White Relations to
1830, Needs and Opportunities for Study. Williamsburg, Va., Univ.
of North Carolina Press, 1957.
Funke, Karl A. and Kirke Kickingbird. "The Role of Native Ameri-
cans in American Legal History." Paper presented to the American
Assn. of Law Libraries, Institute on American Legal History, Har-
vard Law School, June 26, 1976. Law Lihrary Journal, Vol. 69,
No. 4 (Nov., 1976) : 474-493.
Gookin, Daniel. Historical Collection of the hidians in Neio England..
New York, Amo Press, 1972.
Harkins, Arthur. A Bibliography of Urban Indiana in the United
States. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Programs,.
Univ. of Minnesota, July, 1971.
Hodge, William H. A Bibliography of Contemporary North Ameri-
can Indians: Selected and Partially Annotated with Study Guides..
New York, Interland Publishing, 1975. 320 pp.
Honkala, Rudolf A. Surface Mining and Mined Land Reclamation,.
A Selected Bibliography. Washington, D.C. The Old West Re-
gional Commission, Oct., 1974.
Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin FranMin: 1736-1762. Philadel-
phia, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1938.
(125)
126
Index to Literature on the Ainerican Indian. San Francisco, Indian
Historian Press, 1970.
Locklear, Jane Maynor and Drenna J. Oxendine. "The Lumbee In-
dians : A Bibliography." The Indian Historian (Winter, 1974) :
32-54.
Medicine, Beatrice. "The Role of Women in Native American Socie-
ties: A Bibliography." The Indian Historian^ Vol. 8, No. 3 (Sum-
mer, 1975) : 50-53.
Miirdock, George Peter. Ethnographic Bibliography of North
America. New Haven, Conn., Human Relations Area Files Press,
1975.
Native American Rights Fund ; National Indian Law Library Cata-
logue. (Cumulative ed.) Boulder, Colo., 1976.
Sabatini, Joseph D. A Selective Bibliography of Material in the Uni-
versity of Neio Mexico Law Library'' s Special Collection in Ameri-
can Indian Law. (rev. ed.) Albuquerque, American Indian Law
Center, School of Law, Univ. of New Mexico, Apr., 1972. 21 pp.
Smithsonian Institution; List of Publications of the Bureau of Eth-
nology with Index to Authors and Titles. (Bureau of American
Ethnology, Bulletin 200.) Washington, D.C., 1970.
Smithsonian Institution, Center for the Study of Man. Current North
American Indian Periodicals. Leaflet 75-7. Washington, D.C. 26 pp.
"Sources of American Indian Law." George Grossman, panel mod-
erator. Law Library Journal., Vol. 67, No. 4 (Nov., 1974) : 494.
South, Charles E. Hearings in the records of the U.S. Senate amd
Joint Committees of the Congress. Washington, D.C., National
Swanton, John Reed. Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial
Life of the Choctaw Indians. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1931.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Health Services
and Mental Health Admin. Selected Bibliography {Indians and
Health). No. 71-24, May 25, 1971. 6 pp.
U.S. Departmnt of Health, Education and Welfare, Indian Health
Service. Index to General Counsel Opinions. May 1975. Wash-
ington, D.C. 34 pp.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Clear-
inghouse for Alcohol Information. Siibject Area Bibliography on
Compendium of Ongoing Alcoholism Research. Part B: American
Indians, Eskimos. Washington, June 1974.
127
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Library
of Medicine. Indian Health in the U.S. and Canada.^ January 1964-
August 1968. Bethesda, Md.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Digest of Decisions: Cases Relating
to the Public Lands. Vols. 1-61. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Library of Congress, National Referral Center. A Directory of
Infomiation Resources in the U.S.: Social Sciences. Washington,
Library of Congress, 1973.
U.S. National Archives. List of Documents Concerning the Negotia-
tion of Ratified Indian Treaties, 1801-1869. Millwood, N.Y., Kraus
Reprint Co., 1975.
U.S. National Historical Publications Committee. A Guide to Ar-
chives and Manuscripts in the United States. New Haven, Conn.,
Yale Univ. Press, 1961.
Webb, Vincent J. Indian Justice : A Research Bibliography. ]Monti-
cello, 111., Council of Planning Libraries, Exchange Bibliography
1134,1976.67 pp.
Yale Univ. Department of Anthropology. Ethnographic Bibliogra-
phy, Vol. 1. New Haven, Conn,, Yale Univ. Press. ^
Bibliographic Services
Classified Abstract Archive of Alcohol Literature. Box 566, Rutgers
Univ. Center of Alcohol Studies, New Brunswick, N.J.
National Clearinghouse for ISIental Health Information (National
Institute for Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare). 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md. 20852.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (National Institute of
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assist-
ance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice) Washington
D.C.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (National Insti-
tute of Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare). 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md. 20852.
National Library of Medicine (U.S. Deprtment of Health, Education,
and Welfare). National Interactive Retrieval Service. 8600 Rock-
ville Pike, Bethesda, Md. 20014.
FEDERAL COURT CASES ON AMERICAN INDIAN ISSUES
[The list below represents some of the cases examined by the
Commission staff.]
1809-1955
Buster X. Wright, 135 F. 947 (8th Cir. 1905) .
Buttz V. Northern Pacific R.R., 119 U.S. 55 (1886) .
Cherokee Nations. Georgia,2>0\].^. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831).
Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896) .
Ex Parte Crow Doq, 109 U.S. 556 (1883) .
Ex Parte Tilden, 218 F. 920 (D. Idaho 1914) .
Felix V. Patrick, 145 U.S. 317 ( 1892 ) .
Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87 ( 1810) .
Gon-shay-ee, Petitioner, 130 U.S. 343 ( 1889) .
nallowellx. United States,'2'll'[].'^.?>l1 (1911).
Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 231 F. 2d 89 (8th Cir. 1956).
Johnson v. Mcintosh, 8 Wheat, 543 ( 1823) .
The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737 ( 1866) . ♦
Lane v. Pueblo of Santa Rosa, 249 U.S. 110 ( 1919) .
Leahy v. Trcamirer of Oklahoma, 297 U.S. 420 (1936) .
Lone Wolfy. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903).
Makah Indian Tribe v. Schoettler, 192 F. 2d 224 (9th Cir. 1951).
Miller \. United States, 159 F. 2d 997 (9th Cir. 1947) .
Minnesotax. Hitchcock, 160 U.S. 373 (1902).
Morris v. Hitchcock, 104 U.S. 384 (1904) .
Neiu Yorkx. 5^ c/^er, 241 U.S. 556 (1916).
The Neio York Indians, 5 Wall. 761 (1866) .
Perrinx. United States,'^Z^\].^ An (1914).
Seminole Nation v. White, 224 F. 2d 173 (10th Cir. 1955) .
Seufert Bros. Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 194 (1919).
Spaidding x. Chandler, 160 U.S. 394 ( 1896) .
SpHggs v. McKay, 228 F. 2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1955) .
Tee-Hut-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955).
Toosigah v. United States, 137 F. 2d 713, (10th Cir. 1943).
Toosi'gah v. United States, 186 F. 2d 93 (10th Cir. 1950) .
TuJee X. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 (1942) .
United States v. Alcea Band of TiUamocks, 329 U.S. 40 (1946).
United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278 (1909) .
United States x. CUnburg, 224 F. 2d 177 ( 10th Cir. 1955) .
United States v. Jackson, 280 U.S. 183 ( 1930) .
United States v. McCowan, 302 U.S. 535 (1938) .
United States x. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432 ( 1903) .
United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913) .
United States v. Sutton, 215 U.S. 291 (1909) .
(129)
130
United States v. 10.96 Acres of Land in Juneau, 75 F. Siii^p. 841
(D.Alas. 1948).
United States \. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905).
United States v. Wnght',^?> F. 2d 301 (4th Cir. 1931) .
Utah & Northern R.R. v. Fischer, 116 U.S. 28 ( 1885) .
Ward V. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 ( 1896) .
Whitney v. Rolertson, 124 U.S .190 (1888) .
Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711 (1946) .
Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) .
WovcesteryMeorgia,^l\].^. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).
1956
Arenas v. United States, 140 F. Supp. 606 (S.D. Cal. 1956) .
Chitto V. United States, 138 F. Supp. 253 (Ct. CI. 1956).
Choctaw & Chickasaw Nations v. Seay, 235 F. 2d 30 (10th Cir. 1956).
Demniert v. Demmert, 139 F. Supp. 325 (D. Alas. 1956).
Forest Lumher Co. v. United States, 141 F. Supp. 953 (Ct. CI. 1956).
Furman v. United States, 140 F. Supp. 781 (Ct. CI. 1956) , cert, denied,
352U.S. 847 (1956).
GiJa River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, 140
F. Supp. 776 (Ct.CL 1956).
Guith V. United States, 230 F. 2d 481 (9th Cir. 1956) .
Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173 ( 1956) .
Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Rcffervation, 231
F. 2d (8th Cir. 1956).
Klamath Tnhe v. Maison, 139 F. Supp. 634 (D. Ore. 1956).
Mole Lake Band v. United States, 139 F. Supp. 938 (Ct. CI. 1956).
New Mexico & Arizona Land Co. v. Elkins, 137 F. Supp. 767 (D.N.^NI.
1956).
Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation v. Barta, 146 F.
Supp. 917 (D.S.D. 1956).
Sioux Tribe v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 229 (Ct. CI. 1956).
Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1 (1956).
United States v. Ahtanmn Irrigation District, 236 F. 2d 321 (9th Cir.
1956).
United States v. Pierce, 235 F. 2d 885 (9th Cir. 1956) .
United States v. Preston, 232 F. 2d 77 (9th Cir. 1956) .
United States v. Washington, 233 F. 2d 811 (9th Cir. 1956).
United States v. West, 232 F. 2d 694 (9th Cir. 1956) .
Yuchi Tnbe v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 206 (Ct. CI. 1956).
1957
Alonzo V. United States, 249 F. 2d 189 (10th Cir. 1957).
Azure v. United States, 248 F. 2d 335 (8th Cir. 1957) .
Barnett v. Riggs National Bank, 154 F. Supp. 75 (D.D.C. 1957).
Chicasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Maysville, 249 F. 2d 542 (10th Cir. 1957).
Haile V. Saunooke, 148 F. Supp. 602 (S.D.N.C. 1957) .
Haile v. Saunooke, 246 F. 2d 293 (9th Cir. 1957) .
Kirhwood v. Arenas, 243 F. 2d 863 (9th Cir. 1957).
131
Martinez v. ^oidlieyn Ute Trite, 249 F. 2d 015 (lOtli Cir. 1957).
McCord V. Nichanorlm, 151 F. Supp. 132 (D. Alas. 1957).
Putnam v. United States, 248 F. 2d 292 (8th Cir. 1957).
St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. v. Francis, 249 F. 2d 546 (lOthCir. 1957).
State ex rel. Highioay Community of New Mexico v. United States,
148 F. Supp. 508 (D.N.M. 1957).
Uintah & Wind River Bands of Ute Indians v. United States, 152 F.
Supp. 953 (Ct. CI. 1957).
United States v. 5,677.94. Acres of Land of the Croio Reservation, 152
F. Supp. 861 (D. Mont. 1957).
United States v. Fraser, 156 F. Supp. 144 (D. Mont. 1957).
United States v. Lamb, 150 F. Supp. 310 (N.D. Cal. 1957).
United States v. LaPlant, 156 F. Supp. 660 (D. Mont. 1957).
United States v. Seaton, 248 F. 2d 154 (D.C. Cir. 1957).
United States v. 21 MO Acres of Land, Cattaraugus County, 161 F.
Supp. 376 (WD.N.Y. 1957).
Upper Chehalis T rile v. United States. 155 F. Supp. 226 (Ct. CI.
1957).
UnUed States v. Davis, 148 F. Supp. 478 (D.X.D. 1957).
1958
Andrea.s v. Llenderson, 160 F. Supp. 252 (S.I). Cal. 1958) .
Barta v. Oghda Sioux Trihe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 259 F. 2d 553
(8th Cir. 1958).
Da-vis V. Jones. 254 F. 2d 696 (10th Cir. 1958) .
Forman v. United States, 256 F. 2d 766 (8th Cir. 1958) .
Fraser \. United States, 261 F. 2d 282 (9th Cir. 1958) .
midehrand v. United States, 261 F. 2d 354 (9th Cir. 1958) .
Tdood V. United States. 256 F. 2d 522 (9t.h Cir. 1958) .
Inre Carmen. 165 F. Supp. 942 (N.D. Cal. 1958).
IvanKoe Irrigation District v. McCrachen. 357 U.S. 466 (1958).
Prairie Band of Pottawatomie v. United States. 165 F. Supp. 139 (Ct.
CI. 1958).
Seneca Nation v. Brucher. 162 F. Supp. 580 (D.D.C. 1958) .
ShepardY. United States, 162 F. Supp. 313 (D.D.C. 1958).
Tuscarora Indian Nation v. Federal Power Convrrh'n.. 265 F. 2d 338
(D.C. Cir. 1958) ; rev\l on other grounds. 362 TT.S. 99 (1960) .
Tuscarora Nation v. Power Authority of New York, 161 F. Supp. 702
(S.D.N. Y. 1958).
Tuscarora Nation v. Power Authority of Neto YorJc. 164 F. Supp. 107
( W.D.N. Y. 1958), modified, 257 F. 2d 885 (2d Cir. 1958), cert. fi?e-
mec?. 358 U.S. 841 (1958).
United States v. Booth, 161 F. Supp. 269 (D. Alas. 1958) .
United, States; v. 5,677.94 Acres of Land of the Crow Reservation, 162
F. Supp. 108 (D. Mont. 1958).
United States v. Frishee, 165 F. Supp. 883 (D. Mont. 1958) .
United States v. Kiowa, Comanche and Apaclie Trihes. 163 F. Supp.
603 (Ct.CL 1958).
United States v. 2,005.32 Acres of Land, Carson County, 160 F. Supp.
193 (D.S.D. 1958).
Wilhurton, Oklahoma v. Sioafford, 253 F. 2d 479 (10th Cir. 1958).
132
1959
Dav'is V. Jones, 254 F. 2d 696 (10th Cir. 1959) .
Foster \. United States, 183 F. Siipp. 524 (D.KM. 1959).
Haijes V. Seaton, 270 F. 2d 319 (D.C. Cir. 1959) .
Healing v. Jones, 174 F. Supp. 211 (D. Ariz. 1959) .
MaysviUe, Oklahoma v. Magnolia Petroleum, Co., 272 F. 2d 806 (10th
Cir. 1959).
Miami Trile of Ohlahoma v. TJnlted States, 175 F. Supp. 926 (Ct. CI.
1959).
Native Ameivcan Church of North America v. Navajo Tribal Council,
272 F. 2d 131 ( 10th Cir. 1959 ) .
Nicodemus v. Washington Water Power Co., 264 F. 2d 614 (9th Cir.
1959).
Organized Village of JCake v. Egan, 174 F. Supp. 500 (D. Alas. 1959).
Shokomhh Indian frihe v. France, 269 F. 2d 555 (9th Cir. 1959).
SpHngs v. Seaton, Til F. 2d 583 (10th Cir. 1959) .
Tlingit & Haida Indians of Alaska v. United States, 177 F. Supp. 452
(Ct. CI. 1959).
United States v. Camw, 169 F. Supp. 568 (E.D. Wash. 1959) .
United States v. Davis, 148 F. Supp. 478 (D.N.D. 1959).
United States v. Davis. 429 F. 2d 552 (8th Cir. 1959^ .
United States v. Red Wolfe. 172 F. Supp. 168 (D. Mont. 1959).
United States v. Seminole Nation. 173 F. Supp. 784 (Ct. CI. 1959).
Williams V. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959) .
1960
Anderson v. Gladden, 188 F. Supp. 666 (D. Ore. 1960) .
Confederated Trlhes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation w Maison, 186
F. Supp. 519 (D. Ore. 1960) .
Croio Trlhe v. United States, 284 F. 2d 361 (Ct. CI. 1960) .
Federal Power Commin. v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99
(1960).
Fitzgerald v. Ardmore. Oklahoma, 281 F. 2d 717 (10th Cir. 1960).
Gonmles v. Seaton. 183 F. Supp. 708 (D.D.C. 1960) .
Haley v. Seaton. 281 F. 2d 620 (D.C. Cir. 1960) .
Kansas City, Kansas v. United States, 192 F. Supp. 179 (D. Kan.
1960).
Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe. 273 F. 2d 731 (10th Cir. 1960).
McMoran v. Tuscarora Nation, 362 U.S. 608 (1960) .
Metlakaila Indian Community v. Egan, 363 U.S. 555 (1960) .
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 281 Y. 2d 202 (Ct. CI.
1960).
Navajo Tribe v. NLRB, 288 F. 2d 162 (D.C. Cir. 1960).
United States v. Ballard, 184 F. Supp. 1 (D.N.M. I960) .
United States ex rel. Pueblo of San Ildefonso v. Brewer, 184 F. Supp.
377 (D.X.M. 1960).
United States v. Gra/nd River Dam Authority, 363 U.S. 229 (1960).
United States v. Hilderbrand. 190 F. Supp. 283 (D. Kan. 1960).
United States v. Rider, 282 F. 2d 476 (9th Cir. 1960) .
13^3
1961
Anderson v. Gladden, 293 F. 2d 463 (9th Cir. 1961 ) .
Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Udall, 192 F. Supp. 626 (D.D.C.
1961).
Sakezzle v. Utah Indian Affairs Comm'n., 198 F. Supp. 218 (D. Utah
1961).
Spriggs v. United States, 297 F. 2cl 460 (10th Cir. 1961) .
United States v. Alaska, 197 F. Supp. 834 (D. Alas. 1961) .
United States v. Cline, 199 F. Supp. 676 (W.D.N.C. 1961).
White foot V. United States, 293 F. 2d 658 (Ct. CI. 1961) .
Wise V. United States, 297 F. 2d 822 (10th Cir. 1961) .
A^avajo Tiihe v. NLRB, 288 F. 2d 162 (D.C. Ch\ 1961) .
1962
Armstrong v. United States, 306 F.2d 520 ( 10th Cir. 1962) .
Asenap v. Huff, 312 F.2d 358 (D.C. Cir. 1962) .
Bariies v. United States, 205 F. Supp. 97 (D. Mont. 1962) .
Big Eagle v. United States, 300 F.2d 765 (Ct. CI. 1962) .
Ora.in v. First National Bank, 206 F. Supp. 783 (D. Ore. 1962) .
DeMaiiias v. South Dakota, 206 F. Supp. 549 (S.D.S.D. 1962).
Dlcke V. Cheyenne- Arapaho Tribes, Inc., 304 F.2d 113 (10th Cir.
1962).
Foster v. First National Bank, 213 F. Supp. 884 (D. Ore. 1962).
Healing v. Jones, 210 F. Supp. 125 (D. Ariz. 1962) .
Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 369 U.S. 45 ( 1962) .
Oliver V. Udall, 306 F.2d 819 (D.C. Cir. 1962) .
Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60 ( 1962) .
Panmee Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 301 F.2d 667
(Ct.Chl962).
Pinto V. Tampo Largo, 205 F. Supp. 129 (S.D. Cal. 1962) .
Running Horse v. Udall, 211 F. Supp. 586 (D.D.C. 1962) .
Seymour v. Superintendent of Wash. State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351
(1962).
Tobey V. Udall, 202 F. Supp. 319 (D. Ore. 1962) .
United States v. Alaska, 201 F. Supp. 796 ) D. ALas. 1962) .
United States v. Hallam, 304 F.2d 620 (10th Cir. 1962) .
1963
Arlzomi v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) .
Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1963) .
Assiniboine arid Sioux Tribes v. Calvert Exploration Co., 223 F. Supp.
909 (D.Mont. 1963).
Crain v. First National Bank, 324 F.2d 532 (9th Cir. 1963) .
BeMarrias v. South Dakota, 319 F.2d 845 (8th Cir. 1963).
Glover v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 19 ( D. Mont. 1963 ) .
Malson v. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,
314 F.2d 169 ■(9th Cir. 1963) .
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. United States, 315 F.2d 906 (Ct. CI.
1963).
134
No.sh V. Wiseman. 227 F. Siipp. 552 (TT.D. Okla. 1963) .
Prairie Band of the Pottawatomie T rile v. PucJcee, 321 F.2d 767 (lOth
Cir. 1963).
Reed y. United States National Bank. 213 F. Supp. 919 (D. Ore. 1963) .
Sakezzie v. Utah Indian Affairs Comm'n. 215 F. Supp. 12 (D. Utah
1963).
Sioux Tribe of the Lower Bnde Reservation v. United States, 315 F.2d
378 (Ct. CI.' 1963).
Shohomish Indian Tribe v. France. 320 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1973).
Springer v. Townsend, 222 F. Supp. 231 (X.D. Okla. 1963) .
United States v. Moore HiU and Lumber Co.. 313 F.2d 71 (9th Cir.
1963).
1964
Arizona v. California. 376 U.S. 340 (1964) .
Bnfher V. PatenclJ. 232 F. Supp. 939 (S.D. Cal. 1964) .
Barclay v. United States. 233 F.2d 847 (Ct. CI. 1964) .
Cheyenne River Sioux v. United States. 388 F.2d 906 ( 1964) .
Commissioner v. Walker. 326 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1964) .
Green v. Wilson. 331 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1964) .
niMerbrand v. Taylor. 327 F.2d 205 ( 10th Cir. 1964) .
In re McCoy. 233 F. Supp. 409 (E.D.N.C. 1964) .
Iron V. Knowles. 234 F. Supp. 327 (D. Mont. 1964) .
Klamath <& Modoo Tribes v. Mai son. 338 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1964).
Lfaf V. Udall. 235 F. Supp. 366 (X.D. Cal. 1964) .
Pease v. Udall. 332 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. 1964) .
Sa/' rf' Fox Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States. 340 F.2d 368 (Ct. CI.
1964).
Springer V. Towv^evd. 336 F.2d 397 (10th Cir. 1964).
Udall V. Littell. 338 F.2d 537 ( D.C. Cir. 1964) .
Urixted States v. Ahtanvm Irngation District. 330 F.2d 897 (9th Cir.
1964).
1965
Bird-ln-the-Grov.nd v. District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Dis-
trict. 239 F. Supp. 981 (D. :sront. 1965 j .
Bledsoe v. United Staffs. 349 F.2d 605 (10th Cir. 1965) .
Bowman v. Udall 243 F. Supp. 672 (D.D.C. 1965) .
Collif.oioer v. Garland. 342 F. Supp. 369 (9th Cir. 1965) .
Daney v. United States. 247 F. Supp. 533 (D. Kan. 1965) .
Daniels v. United States. 247 F. Supp. 193 (W.D. Okla. 1965).
Dosdall V. Fraser. 246 F. Supp. 311 (D. Mont. 1965) .
Ellis V. Paqe. 351 F.2d 250 (10th Cir. 1965) .
Lltfell V. A^akai. 344 F. Supp. 635 (D.D.C. 1965) .
Red Lake c5 Pprnhina Bands v. Turtle Mountain Band of Chlppetca
Indians, 355 F.2d 936 (Ct. CI. 1965) .
Simmons v. Eagle Seelatsee. 244 F. Supp. 808 (E.D. "Wash. 1965).
Superior Oil Go. v. Umtpd States. 353 F.2d 34 (9th Cir. 1965) .
Unfiled States ex rel. Rolling son v. Blackfeet Tribal Court. 244 F.
Supp. 474 (D. Mont. 1965) .
United States v. Emmons. 351 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1965) .
United States v. Preston. 352 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1965) .
135
Warren Trading Post v. Arizona State Tax Coninvn., 380 U.S. 685
(1965).
Yoder v. Assinihoine atid Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reser-
vation, 339 F.2d 360 (9th Cir. 1965).
1966
Attochknie v. Udall, 2G1 F. Supp. 876 (W.D. Olda. 1066).
Cheinak v. Fodder, 259 F. Supp. 910 (1966).
Cherokee v. United States, 355 F.2d 945 (Ct. CI. 1966).
Chewie v. Lock, 261 F. Supp. 830 ( X.D. Okla. 1066 ) .
Choctaxc (£• Chickasaw Nations v. Board of County Commissioners, 361
F.2d932 (10th Cir. 1966).
Confederated Trihes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation v. Maison,
262 F. Supp. 871 (D.' Ore. 1966).
Hinton V. Udall, 364 F.2d 676 (D.C. Cir. 1966).
Holt V. Commissioner, 364 F.2d 38 (8th Cir. 1966) .
Hot Oil Service, Inc. v. Hall, 366 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1966) .
Maryland Gas Co. v. Citizens National. Bank. 361 F.2d 517 (5th Cir.
1966).
Midwestern Developments, Inc. v. Tulsa. 259 F. Supp. 554 (X.D. Okla.
1966).
Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States, 364 F.2d 320 (Ct. CI. 1966) .
Navajo Trihe of Indians v. United States, 368 F.2d 279 (Ct. CI. 1966).
Peoria Trihe of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States. 369 F.2da001
(Ct. CI. 1966).
Prairie Band of the Pattaiv atomic Trihe of Indians x. Udall. 355 F.2d
364 (10th Cir. 1966).
QuinaiJt Trihe of the Quinault Reservation v. GaJlaqher. 368 F.2d 648
(9th Cir. 1966).
UdaJl V. Littell, 336 F.2d 668 (D.C. Cir. 1966) .
United States v. Bruisedhead, 248 F. Supp. 999 (D. Mont. 1966).
United States v. Daney, 370 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1966) .
United States v. Gomez. 250 F. Supp. 535 (D.X.M. 1966).
United States v. 9,34^5.53 Acres of Land, Cattaraugus County. 256 F.
Supp. 603 (W.D.X.Y. 1966).
United States v. Red Bear, 250 F. Supp. 633 (D.S.D. 1966) .
United States v. Russell. 261 F. Supp. 196 (E.D. Okla. 1966) .
Whitehird v. Eagle-Piclier Co., 258 F. Supp. 308 (X.D. Okla. 1966) .
1967
Appleton V. Kennedy, 268 F. Supp. 22 (X.D. Okla. 1967).
Assinihoine and Sioux Trihes v. Nordwick 378 F.2d 426 (9th Cir.
1967).
Atewoof taker v. Udall, 277 F. Supp. 464 (TT.D. Okla. 1967) .
Beardsley v. United States. 387 F.2d 280 (8th Cir. 1967) .
Citizen Band of Pottawatomie Indians of Oklahoma v. United States,
391F.2d614(Ct. CI. 1967).
Couch V. Udall. 265 F. Supp. 848 (W.D. Okla. 1967).
Disney v. Pritzker, 385 F.2d 572 (7th Cir. 1967) .
Finch V. United States, 263 F. Supp. 309 (W.D. Okla. 1967).
136
Finch V. United States, 387 F.2d 13 (lObh Cir. 1967) .
Gray v. United States, 394 F.2d 96 (9ith Cir. 1967) .
Harkins v. United States, 375 F.2d 239 ( 10th Cir. 1967) .
Heifleman v. Udall, 378 F.2d 190 ( 10th Cir. 1967) .
Eolcomb V. Confederated Triles of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,
382 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1967).
Kickapoo Trihe of Kansas v. United States, 372 F.2d 980 (Ct. CI.
1967).
Lawrence v. United States, 381 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1967).
Letois V. General Services Administration, 377 F.2d 499 (9th Cir.
1967).
McKay v. United States, 274 F. Supp. 1022 (D.N.D. 1967).
Menominee Trihe v. United States. 388 F.2d 998 (Ct. CI. 1967).
Rundle V. Udall, 379 F.2d 112 (D.C. Cir. 1967) .
Sam V. United States, 385 F.2d 213 (10th Cir. 1967) .
Simons v. Udall, 276 F. Supp. 75 (D. Mont. 1967).
SnoquaXmi£ TriU v. United States, 372 F.2d 951 (a. CI. 1967) .
T%Dvn Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tnhe,
370 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1967).
United States v. Bennett County, 265 F. Supp. 249 (D.S.D. 1967).
Walks on Top v. United States, 372 F.2d 422 (9th Cir. 1967).
1968
Acunia v. United States, 404 F.2d 140 (9th Cir. 1968) .
Asenap v. United States, 283 F. Supp. 566 (W.D. Okla. 1968).
Attocknie v. Udall, 390 F. Supp. 636 (10th Cir. 1968) .
Beams v. United States, 294 F. Supp. 1218 (E.D. Okk. 1968) .
Bennett County v. United States, 394 F.2d 8 (8th Cir. 1968) .
Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma v. Oklahoma, 402 F.2d 739 (lOth Cir.
1968).
Choctaio Nation v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 396 F.2d 578
(10th Cir. 1968).
Choctaw Nation v. Shull, 396 F. 2d 583 (10th Cir. 1968).
Choctaw Nation v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry., 396 F.2d 582 (10th
Cir. 1968).
Choctaw Nation v. Udall, 404 F.2d 97 ( 10th Cir. 1968) .
David V. Littell, 398 F.2d 83 (9th Cir. 1968) .
Dodge v. Nahai, 298 F. Supp. 17 (D. Ariz. 1968) .
Fori Berthold Reservation v. United States, 390 F.2d 686 (Ct. CI.
1968).
Gourneau v. United States, 390 F.2d 320 (8th Cir. 1968).
Gray v. Johnson, 395 F.2d 533 (10th Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 392 U.S.
906 (1968).
Kirk V. Kirk, 295 F. Supp. 1001 (D. Ore. 1968) .
Mann v. United States. 399 F.2d 672 (9th Cir. 1968).
Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968).
Motah V. United States. 402 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1968) .
Mull V. United States. 402 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1968) .
Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States. 390 U.S. 468 (1968).
Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co.. 390 U.S. 365 (1968).
PocateUo v. United States, 394 F. 2d 115 (9th Cir. 1968).
Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 391 U.S. 392 (1968) .
137
Rayonier, Inc. v. Poison, 400 F.2d 909 (9tli Cir. 1968) .
Seifert v. Udall, 280 F.Supp. 443 (D. Mont. 1968) .
Simons v. Vinson, 394 F. 2d 732 (5th Cir. 1968).
Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska v. United States, 389 F.2d 778
a. CI. 1968).
Tweedy v. Texas Co., 286, F. Siipp. 383 (D. Mont. 1968) .
Udall V. Taunah, 398 F.2d 795 (10th Cir. 1968).
United States v. Gila River-Maricopa Indian Community, 391 F.2d
53 (9th Cir. 1968).
United States v. Northern Poiute Nation, 393 F.2d 786 (Ct. CI. 1968).
United States v. Vidles, 282 F. Supp. 829 (D. Mont. 1968) .
Whitehird v. Eagle-Picher Co., 390 F. 2d 831 (10th Cir. 1968) .
PoafpyMtty v. Skelly Oil Co., 390 U.S. 365 (1968).
1969
Agua CaZiente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 306
F. Supp. 279 (S.D. Cal. 1969) .
Arizona ex rel. Merrill v. Turtle, 413 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1969) . _
Bumgamer v. Ute Indian Trihe of Uintah and Ourey Reservation, 417
F.2d 1305 (10th Cir. 1969).
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes v. United States, 338 F.2d 906 (8th Cir.
1969).
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Trihes of the Flathead Reserva-
tion V. United States, 401 F.2d 785 (Ct. CI. 1968), cert, denied, 393
U.S. 1055 (1969). *
Dodge v. Nahai, 298 F. Supp. 26 (D. Ariz. 1969) .
Fontenelle v. Omaha Trihe of Nebraska, 298 F. Supp. 855 (D. Ariz.
1969).
nigh Horse v. Tate, 407 F.2d 394 (10th Cir. 1969) .
Hopkins v. United States, 4:U F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1969) .
Marsh v. Union Pacific R.R., 304 F. Supp. 478 (D. Ore. 1969).
Scholder v. United States, 298 F. Supp. 1282 (S.D. Cal. 10G9).
Settler v. Lameer, 419 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1969) .
Settler v. Yakima Tribal Court, 419 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1969) .
Shapiros. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969).
Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Ore. 1969) .
Spotted Eagle v. Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation,
301 F. Supp. 85 (D. Mont. 1969).
United States v. Native Village of Unalakleet, 411 F.2d 1255 (Ct. CI.
1969).
United States ex rel. Bumette v. Valandra, 300 F. Supp. 312 (D.S.D.
1969).
WilUa.ms v. United States, 406 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1969), cert, denied,
394 U.S. 959, (1969).
1970
Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 431 F.2d 1349 (10th
Cir. 1970).
Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 619 (1970) .
Fields V. United States, 423 F.2d 380 (Ct. CI. 1970) .
Fontenelle v. Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, 430 F.2d 143 (8th Cir. 1970).
Gila River Pima-M aricopa Indian Community v. United States, 4:'27
F.2d 1194 (Ct. CI. 1970).
138
Great Lakes Inter-tribal Council^ Inc. v. Voigt, 309 F. Siipp. 60 (W.D.
Wise. 1970).
Hehah V. United States, 428 F.2d 1334 (a. CI. 1970) .
Mescalero Apache THhe v. Hickel, 432 F.2d 956 (10th Cir. 1970).
Littell V. Hickel, 314 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Md. 1970) .
Pinnow v. Shoshone Tribal Coimcil, 314 F. Supp. 1157 (D. Wyo.
1970).
Reyos v. t/m^ec? /S'z^a^Jes, 431 F.2d 1337 ( 10th Cir. 1970) .
SchoUer v. United States, 428 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1970) .
Sisseton & Wahpeton Tribes v. United States, 423 F.2d 1386 (Ct. CI.
1970).
Tewa Tesuque v. Morton, 498 F.2d 240 ( 10th Cir. 1970) .
Tooahnippah (Goombi) v. Hickel, 397 U.S. 570 (1970).
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 431 F.2d 763 (9th Cir.
1970).
United States v. Assiniboine Tribes, 428 F.2d 1324 (Ct. CI. 1970).
United States v. Ohilds, 429 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1970) .
United States v. Davis, 429 F.2d 552 (8th Cir. 1970) .
United States v. Delaware Tribe, 427 F.2d 1218 (Ct. CI. 1970).
United States v. Fishing Vessels Pan Alaska, St. John and Junior, 315
F. Supp. 10005 (D. Alas. 1970) .
United States v. Hombuckle. 422 F.2d 391 (4th Cir. 1970) .
United States v. Kinney, 437 F.2d 407 (9th Cir. 1970) .
United States v. Southern Ute Tribe or Band, 423 F.2d 346 (Ct. CI.
1970).
United States v. 10.69 Acres of Land, Yakima County, 425 F.2d 317
(9th Cir. 1970).
United States v. Wheeler, 434 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1970) .
Ute Indian Tribes v. Probst, 428 F.2d 491 (10th Cir. 1970) .
1971
Akers v. Morton, 333 F. Supp. 184 (D. Mont. 1971) .
Annis v. Dewey County Bank, 335 F. Supp. 133 (1971) .
Big Eagle v. United States, 323 F. Supp. 60 (D.S.D. 1971) .
Carter v. Carlson, 447 F.2d 358 (D.C. Cir. 1971), rev'd., 409 U.S. 418
(1973).
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flaihead Reservation
V. United States, 437 F.2d 458 {Ct. CI. 1971) .
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation
V. Vulles, 437 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1971) .
Davis V. Morton, 335 F. Supp. 1258 (D.N.M. 1971) .
Fondahn v. Native Village of Tyonek, 450 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1971).
Grmindhog v. Keeler, 442 F.2d 674 (10th Cir. 1971) .
Guardianship of Pietro v. City of Palm Springs, 328 F. Supp. 716
(C.D.Cal.l971).
Henry v. United States, 432 F.2d 114 (9th Cir. 1971) .
Kennerly v. District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, 400 U.S. 423
(1971).
Kills Crow V. United States, 451 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1971) .
Klamath c& Modoc Tribes v. United States, 436 F.2d 1008 (Ct. CI.
1971). ' ^
139
Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Herhst^ 334 F. Supp. 1001
(Ct. CI. 1971).
Lefthand v. Crow Tnbal Council, 329 F. Supp. 728 (D. Mont. 1971).
Loncassion v. Leekity, 334 F. Supp. 370 (D.N.M. 1971) .
Luxon V. Rosehud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, 337 F. Supp. 243
(D.S.D. 1971).
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. Village of Walfhill, 334 F. Supp. 823 (D.
Neb. 1971).
Otradovec v. First Wisconsin Trust Co., 322 F. Supp. 108 (E.D. Wis.
1971).
Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego, 324 F. Supp.
371 (S.D. Cal.1971).
Rockbridge v. Lincoln, 449 F.2d (9th Cir. 1971) .
Slattery v. Arapahoe Tribal Council, 453 F.2d 278 (10th Cir. 1971).
Solomon v. LaRose, 335 F. Supp. 715 (D. Neb. 1971) .
Stevens v. Comm\. of Internal Revenue, 452 F.2cl 741 (9th Cir. 1971).
, United States v. Beg ay, 441 F.2d 1136 (10th Cir. 1971) .
United States v. Brown, 334 F. Supp. 536 (D. Neb. 1971) .
,Vnited States v. Burland, 441 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1971) .
United States v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., 455 F.2d 432 (9th
Cir. 1971).
. United States v. DeMarrias, 441 F.2d 1304 (8th Cir. 1971 ) .
, United States v. Jeioett, 438 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1971) .
JJnited States v. Joe, 452 F.2d 653 (10th Cir. 1971) .
■.United States v. Babbitt, 334 F. Supp. 665 (D. Mont. 1971) .
United States v. LeMay, 330 F. Supp. 628 (D. Mont. 1971) .
L'nited States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1971) .
.United States v. Southern Ute Tribe or Band, 402 U.S. 159 (1971) .
1972
.Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972).
Aqua Caliente Band of Mission Indians Tribal Council v. City of
Palm Springs, 347 F. Supp. 42 (CD. Cal. 1972).
Cherokee Nation v. Oklahoma, 461 F.2d 674 (10th Cir. 1972).
Neioton, North Dakota v. United States, 454 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1972).
Confederated Salish and Kootenai THhes of Montana v. United States,
467 F.2d 1315 (Ct. CI. 1972) .
Dillon V. Antler Land Co., 341 F. Supp. 734 (D. Mont. 1972).
Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, 467
F.2dl351 (Ct. CI. 1972).
Hamilton v. Nakai, 453 F.2d 152 (9th Cir. 1972), cer?^. denied, 406 U.S.
945 (1972).
Kelly V. Department of Interior, 399 F. Supp. 1095 (N.D. Cal. 1972).
Luxon V. Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, 455 F.2d 698 (8th Cir.
1972).
Mason v. United States. 461 F.2d 1364 (Ct. CI. 1972).
Montana Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 459 F.2d 863 (D.C.
Cir. 1972).
Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Uollowbreast, 349 F. Supp. 1302 (D.
Mont. 1972).
•Otradovec \. First Wisconsin Tnist Co., 454 F.2d 125 (7th Cir. 1972).
140
QuecTian Tribe v. Rose, 350 F. Supp. 106 (S.D. Cal. 1972).
RoUmon v. Wolff, 349 F. Supp. 514 (D. Neb. 1972).
RoUnson v. Wolff, 468 F.2d 438 (8th Cir. 1972) .
Ruiz V. Morton, 462 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 1972) .
Salt River Pima-MaHco'pa Indian Community v. Arizona S <& R Co.,
353 F. Supp. 1098 (D. Ariz. 1972).
Seneca Constitutional Rights Organization v. George, 348 F. Supp.
51 (W.D.N.Y. 1972).
Sessions, Inc. v. Morton, 348 F. Supp. 694 (CD. Cal. 1972).
United States v. BooTie, 347 F. Supp. 1031 (D.N.M 1972).
United States v. Jim, 409 U.S. 80 (1972) .
United States v. Kdbinto, 456 F.2d 1087 (9th Cir. 1972) .
United States v. Keeble, 259 F.2d 757 (8th Cir. 1972) .
United States v. Lewiston Lime Co., 466 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1972).
United States v. Neptune, 337 F. Supp. 1028 (D. Conn. 1972).
United States v. Schwarz, 460 F.2d 1365 (7th Cir. 1972).
United States, v. Thomas, 469 F.2d 145 (8th Cir. 1972).
United States ex. rel. Condon v. Erickson, 344 F. Supp. 777 (D.S.D.
1972).
Ware v. Richardson, 347 F. Supp. 344 (W.D. Okla. 1972).
1973
Aleut Community of St. Paul Island v. United States, 480 F. 2d 831
(Ct. CI. 1973).
Baciarelli v. Morton, 481 F. 2d 610 (9th Cir. 1973)
Brown v. United States, 486 F. 2d 658 (8th Cir. 1973) .
Daly V. United States, 483 F. 2d 700 (8th Cir. 1973) .
DeMarnas v. United States, 487 F. 2d 19 (8th Cir. 1973) .
Department of Game v. Puyallup Trihe, 414 U.S. 44 (1973).
EdwardsenY. Morton, 369 F. Supp. 1359 (D.D.C. 1973) .
Enterprise Electric Co. v. Blackfeet Trile, 353 F. Supp. 991 (D. Mont.
1973).
Fort Mohave Trile v. LaFollette, 478 F. 2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1973) .
Friends of the Earth v. Armstrong, 360 F. Supp. 165 (D. Utah), cert.
denied, 414 U.S. 1171 (1974).
Friends of the Earth v. Armstrong, 485 F. 2d 449 (9th Cir. 1973).
Kale V. United States, 489 F. 2d 449 (9th Cir. 1973) .
Laramie v. Nicholson, 478 F. 2d 315 (9th Cir. 1973) .
Lohnes v. Cloud, 366 F. Supp. 619 (D.N.D. 1973) .
McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Cormnission, 411 U.S. 164 (1973).
Mescalero v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973) .
Moses V. Kinnear, 490 F. 2d 21 (9th Cir. 1973) .
Natn. Indian Youth Council v. Bruce, 366 F. Supp. 313 (D. Utah
1973), ayfW., 485 F. 2d 97 (10th Cir. 1973).
O'Neal V. Cheyenne River Sioux Trihe, 482 F. 2d 1140 (8th Cir. 1973).
Perrin v. United States, 232 U.S. 478 (1973) .
Preston Nutter Corp. v. Morton, 479 F. 2d 696 (10th Cir. 1973)
Quinault Allottee Assn. v. United States, 485 F. 2d 1391 (Ct. CI. 1973) ,
cert, denied, 416 U.S. 961 (1974).
Short V. United States, 486 F. 2d 561 (Ct. CI. 1973), cert, denied, 416
U.S. 961 (1974).
United States v. Blackfeet Trihe, 364 F. Supp. 192 (D. Mont. 1973).
141
■United States v Fort Sill Apache Trihe of Oklahoma, 480 F. 2d 819
(Ct. CI. 1973)* cert, denied, 416 U.S. 993 (1974) .
• United States v. Kiowa, Comanche & Apache Tribes, 479 F. 2d 1369
(Ct. CI. 1973).
■ United States v. Mazune, 487 F. 2d 14 (10th Cir. 1973) , rev'd., 419 U.S.
544 (1975).
United States v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391 (1973) .
United States v. P oilman, 364 F. Supp. 995 (D. Mont. 1973) .
United States v. Redstone, 488 F. 2d 300 (8th Cir. 1973)
White Eagle v. One Feather, 478 F. 2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1973) .
Yazzie v. Morton, 59 F.R.D. 377 (D. Ariz. 1973) .
1974
Akers v. Morton, 499 F. 2d 44 (9th Cir. 1974), cert, denied, 423 U.S.
831 (1974).
■Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 490 F. 2d 521 (10th Cir. 1974), cert.
denied, 417 U.S. 946 (1974).
.Felicia v. United States, 495 F. 2d 353 (8th Cir. 1974), cert, denied^
419 U.S. 849 (1974).
, Freeman v. Morton, 499 F. 2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1974) .
' Gila River Pima-Maricopa liulian Community v. United States, 494
F. 2d 1386 (Ct. CI. 1974), cer?^. denied, 419 U.S. 1021 (1974).
.Klmlall V. Callahan, 493 F. 2d 564 (9th Cir. 1974), cert, denied, 419
U.S. 1019 (1974).
Littell V. Morton, 369 F. Supp. 411 (D. Md. 1974).
Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 ( 1974) .
. McCurdy v. Steele, 506 F. 2d 653 ( 10th Cir. 1974) .
Morton v. Riuz, 415 U.S. 199 ( 1974) .
Norveu v. Sangre de Cr'isto Development Co., 372 F. Supp. 348
(D.N.M. 1974) .
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Otwida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974).
:Pamn v. United States. 496 F. 2d 27 (9th Cir. 1974) .
.Poitra V. DeMarrias. 502 F. 2d 23 (8th Cir. 1974) .
Rosehud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip. 375 F. Supp. 1065 (D.S.D. 1974),
afd., 521 F. 2d 87 (8th Cir. 1975) .
Schautz V. White Lightning, 502 F. 2d 67 (8th Cir. 1974).
Seminole Nation v. United States, 498 F. 2d 1368 (Ct. CI. 1974), cert.
denied, 420 U.S. 907 (1975).
Sessions v. Morton, 491 F. 2d 854 (9th Cir. 1974) .
.Sioux Tribe v. United States, 500 F. 2d 458 (Ct. CI. 1974).
Teiva Tesuque v. Morton, 498 F. 2d 240 (10th Cir. 1974), cert, denied,
420 U.S. 962 (1975).
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippeiva Indians v. United States, 490
F. 2d 933 (Ct.CL1974).
United States v. Analla, 490 F. 2d 1201 (10th Cir. 1974).
United States v. Cleveland, 503 F. 2d 1067 (9th Cir. 1974).
United States v. Gilbert, 378 F. Supp. 82 (D.S.D. 1974).
United States v. Kipp. 369 F. Supp. 774 (D. Mont. 1974).
United States v. Mumherg, 378 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Mont. 1974).
United States v. Northern Paiute Nation, 490 F. 2d 954 (Ct. CI. 1974).
■ United States v. Washington, 496 F. 2d 620 (9th Cir. 1974), cert.
denied, 419 U. S. 1032 ( 1974) .
'Wisconsin PottaAoatomis of Eannahville Indian Community v. Wilsey,
377 F. Supp. 1153 (D. Fla. 1974) .
LAW KEVIEW AKTICLES
Abbott, A., "Indians and the Law," 2 Harv. L. Kev. 167 (1888).
Abourezk, J., "South Dakota Indian Jurisdiction," 11 S.D.L. Rev.
101 (1966).
"Ad Valorem Taxation of Land Affecting the Five Civilized Tribes,"
18 0kla.B.A.J.94(1947).
Adams, C.^ " 'Citado A. Comparecer' : Language Barriers and Due
Process — Is Mailed Notice in English Constitutionally Sufficient?"
61 Calif. L. Rev. 1395 (1973).
"The American Indian— Tribal Sovereignty and Civil Rights," 51
Iowa L. Rev. 654 (1966).
Barker, R., "The Indian Claims Commission — The Conscience of the
Nation in its Dealings with the Original American," 20 Fed. B.J.
240 (1960).
Barney, R., "Some Legal Problems Under the Indian Claims Com-
mission," 20 Fed. B.J. 240 (1960) .
Barsh, R. & J. Henderson, "Tribal Administration of Natural Re-
source Development," 52 N.D.L. Rev. 307 (1975) .
Barsh, R., "Tribal Courts, the Model Code, and the Police Idea in
American Indian Policy," 40 L. & Contemporary Problems 25
(1976).
Beaglehole, E., "Ownership and Inheritance in an American Indian
Tribe," 20 Iowa L. Rev. 304 (1935) .
Benge, W., "Law and Order on Indian Reservations," 20 Fed. B.J. 223
(1960).
Bennett, R., "Problem and Prospects in Developing Indian Commu-
nities," 10 Ariz. L. Rev. 675 (1968) .
Berger, E., "Indian Mineral Interest— A Potential for Economic Ad-
vancement," 10 Ariz. L. Rev. 675 (1968) .
Bodenheimer, B., "The Rights of Children and the Crisis in Litiga-
tion : Modification of Custody In and Out of State," 46 Colo. L. Rev.
495 (1975).
Brown, R., "The Indian Problem and the Law," 39 Yale L.J. 30r
(1930).
(143)
144
Brown, E., "The Taxation of Indian Property," 15 Minn. L. Rev. 182
(1931).
Burnett, D., "An Historical Analysis of the 1968 Indian Civil Rights
Act," 9 Harv. J. on Legis. 557 (1972).
Bysiewicz, S. & R. Van de Mark, "The Legal Status of the Dakota
Woman," 3 Am. Indian L. Rev. 255 (1975) .
Cain, G., "Indian Land Titles in Minnesota," 2 Minn. L. Rev. 177'
(1918).
Chambers, R., "Judicial Enforcement of the Federal Trust Responsi-
bility to Indians," 27 Stan. L. Rev. 1212 ( 1975 ) .
Cockerham, W. & M. Forslund, "Attitudes Toward the Police Among
White and Native American Youth," 3 Am. Indian L. Rev. 419'
(1975).
Cohen, F., "The Erosion of Indian Rights, 1950-1953 : A Case Study
in Bureaucracy," 62 Yale L.J. 348 (1953) .
Cohen, F., "Indian Rights and the Federal Courts," 24 Minn. L. Rev.
145 (1940).
Cohen, F., "Original Indian Title," 32 Minn. L. Rev. 28 (1947) .
Cohen, F,, "The Spanish Origin of Indian Rights in the Law of the
United States," 31 Geo. L.J. 1 ( 1942) .
Cohen, W., "Divorce Filing Fees in Indian Tribal Courts: A First
Look After Boddie v. Connecticut," L. & the Soc. Ord. 541 (1970).,
"Constitutional Rights of the American Tribal Indian," 51 Ya. L. Rev.
121 (1965).
Coy, P., "Justice for the Indian in Eighteenth Century Mexico," 12
Am. J. of Legal Hist. 41(1968).
Crosse, M., "Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction in Indian Country," 4
Ariz. L. Rev. 557 (1962).
Cuykendan, C, "State Taxation of the Indians — Federal Preemption
of Taxation Against the Backdrop of Indian Sovereignty —
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission," 49 Wash. L. Rev.
191 (1973).
Davies, G., "State Taxation on Indian Reservations," Utah L. Re\^
132 (1966).
Davis, L., "Court Reform in the Navajo Nation," 43 J. of the Am. ded. .
Soc'y53(1959).
145
Davis, L., "Criminal Jurisdiction over Indian Country in Arizona,"
1 Ariz. L.Kev. 62 (1959).
Dolan, B., "State Jurisdiction Over Non-Indian Mineral Activities
on Indian Keservations," 52 N.D.L. Rev. 265 (1975) .
Dowling, T., "Criminal Jurisdiction Over Indians and Post-Convic-
tion Remedies," 22 Mont. L. Rev. 165 (1961) .
DuMars, C, "Indictment under the 'Major Crimes Act' — An Exercise
in Unfairness and Unconstitutionality," 10 Ariz. L. Rev. 691 (1968) .
Dumbauld, E., "An Unusual Constitutional Claim," 1 Am. J. of Legal
Hist. 229 (1957).
Eads, S., "Prospecting Permits on Indian Lands: Who Benefits?"
2 Am. Indian L. Rev. 117 ( 1974) .
"Extent of Washington Criminal Jurisdiction Over Indians," 33
Wash. L. Rev. 289 (1958).
Fannin, P., "Indian Education : A Test for Democracy," 10 Ariz. L.
Rev. 661 (1968).
Field, O., "Doctrine of Political Questions in the Federal Courts pt.
6 : Status of Indian Tribes," 8 Minn. L. Rev. 503 (1924) .
Fiske, T. and R. Wilson, "Federal Taxation of Indian Income from
Restricted Indian Lands," 10 Land and Water L. Rev. 63 (1975).
Foreman, G., "The Indian and the Law," 17 Okla. B.A.J. 82 (1946).
Fretz, B., "The Bill of Rights and American Indian Tribal Govern-
ments," 6 Nat'l. Resources J. 581 (1966) .
Friedman, H., "Interest on Indian Claims : Judicial Protection of the
FISC," 5 Val. V.L. Rev. 26 (1970) .
Frye, R., "Analysis of the Act of August 4, 1947 Removing Restric-
tions from Indian Land," 18 Okla. B.A.J. 1902 (1947).
Fuller, L., "Alcoholic Beverage Control : Should the Remaining Reser-
vations Repeal Prohibition Under 18 U.S.C. § 1161 ?" 3 Am. Indian
L. Rev. 429 (1975).
Gabourie, F., "Justice and the Urban American Indian," 46 J. of the
S.B.ofCal.36(1971).
Getches, D., "Lawyers and Indians," Colo. Law 9 (1972) .
Gilbert, W. and J. Taylor, "Indian Land Questions," 8 Ariz. L. Rev.
102(1966).
146
Goldberg, C, "Public Law 280 : The Limits of State Jurisdiction over
Eeservation Indians," 22 U.C.L.A. L. Kev. 535 (1975) .
Goodman, J. and G. Thompson, "The Hopi-Navajo Land Dispute,"
a Am. Indian L. Eev. 397 ( 1975 ) .
Goodrich, C, "The Legal Status of the California Indian, " 14 Calif.
L. Rev. 83 (1926).
Gramen, M. and D. Somers, "Indian Bill of Rights," 5 Sw. V. L. Rev.
139 (1973).
Green, L., "Canada's Indians — ^Federal Policy, International and Con-
stitutional Law," Paper presented to the Soc'y of Intl Law (1969).
Haddon, S., "Access and Wharfage Eights and the Territorial Extent
of Indian Reservation Bordering on Navigable Water — ^Who Owns
the Bed of Flathead Lake?" 27 Mont. L. Rev. 55 (1965).
Higgins, F., "International Law Consideration of the American
Indian Nations by the United States," 3 Ariz. L. Rev. 74 (1961) .
Hobbs, C, "Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights," 32 Geo. Wash. L.
Rev. 504 (1964).
Hobbs, C, "Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights IL," 37 Geo. Wash.
L. Rev. 1251 (1969).
Houghton, N., "The Legal Status of Indian Suffrage in the United
States," 19 Calif. L. Rev. 507 (1931) .
"The Indian Battle for Self-Determination," 58 Calif. L. Rev. 445
(1970).
"Indian Bill of Rights and the Constitutional Status of Tribal Gov-
ernments," Harv. L. Rev. 1343 (1969) .
"Indian Fishing Rights," 8 Willamette L. J. 248 (1972) .
"Indians: Better Dead than Red?" 42 Cal. L. Rev. 101 (1968).
"Indians, Water and the Arid Western States — A Prelude to the Pel-
ton Decision," 5 Utah L. Rev. 495 (1956) .
Johnson, R., "The States versus Indian Off-Reservation Fishing: A
United States Supreme Court Error," 47 Wash. L. Rev. 207 (1972).
Kawashima, Y., "Legal Origins of the Indian Reservation in Colonial
Massachusetts," 13 Am. J. of Legal Hist. 42 (1969).
Keller, R., "William O. Douglas, the Supreme Court, and the Ameri-
can Indians," 3 Am. Indian L. Rev. 333 (1975) .
147
Kelly, J., "Indians— Extent of the 'Fair and Honorable Dealings'
Section of the Indian Claims Commission Act," 15 St. Louis L.J.
491 (1971).
ICelly, W., "Indian Adjustment and the History of Indian Affairs,"
10 Ariz. L. Eev. 559 (1968).
Ivepner, G., "Drums Along the Power Ways," 23 Alb. L. Kev. 135
(1959).
Kerr, J., "Constitutional Rights, Tribal Justice, and the American
Indian," 18 J. of Pub. Law 311 (1969).
Knoepfler, K., "Legal Status of American Indian and His Property,"
7 Iowa L. Bull. 232 (1922).
Koons, M. & H. "Walker, "Jurisdiction over Indian Country in North
Dakota," 36 N.D.L. Eev. 51 (1960).
Krieger, H., "Principles of the Indian Law and the Act of June 18,
1934," 3 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 279 (1935).
Lazarus, A., "The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act : A Flawed
Victory," 40 L. and Contemporary Problems 132 (1976).
Lazarus, A., "Indian Rights Under the Federal Power Act," 20 Fed.
B.J.217 (1960).
^'Legal Status of the Indians," American Bar Association Reports 261
(1891) ; William B. Hornblower.
McArthur, C, "Indian Land Law," 30 Okla. BA.J. 2168 (1959).
McKevitt, T., "The Sovereign and Consent," 12 Land and Nat. Re-
sources Div. J. 117 (1974) .
McLoone, J., "Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights," 10 Ariz. L. Rev.
725 (1968).
Manley, H., "Indian Reservation Ownership in New York," 32
N.Y.S.B. Bull. 134 (1960).
Martone, F., "American Indian Tribal Self -Government in the Fed-
eral System: Inherent Right or Congressional License?" 51 Notre
Dame Law. 600 (1976).
^'Minnesota's Chippewas : Treaties and Trends," 39 Minn. L. Rev. 853
(1955).
■"Monetary Remedies Against the State in Federal Question Cases," 68
Nw.V-L. Rev. 544 (1973).
148
Muskrat, J., "The Indians— An Analysis and Proposal," 28 Legal Aid
. Brietease 187 (1970).
Nash, D., "Tribal Control of Extradition from Keservations," 10 Nat.
Eesources J.626 (1970).
"Need for a Federal Policy in Indian Economic Development," 2
N.M.L.Kev.7l (1972).
Nickeson, S., "The Structure of the Bureau of Indian Affairs," 40 L.
& Contemporary Problems 61 (1976) .
Nutten, W., "Probate Problems of the American Indian," 7 Real Prob.
&Tr.J.495(1972).
Olquin, E. and A. Utton, "The Indian Rural Poor : Providing Legal
Services in a Cross-Cultural Setting," 15 Kan. L. Rev. 487 (1967).
Oliver, R., "The Legal Status of American Indian Tribes," 38 Ore.
L. Rev. 193 (1959).
Olson, T., "Indian — State Jurisdiction over Real Estate Developments
on Tribal Lands," 2 N.M.L. Rev. 81 ( 1972) .
Pease, G., "Constitutional Revision — Indians in the New Mexico Con-
stitution," 9 Nat. Resources J. 466 (1969) .
Pederson, A., "Decision of Indian Tribal Court Held Reviewable
through Federal District Court Habeas Corpus Proceeding," 26
Mont. L. Rev. 240 (1965).
Pound, C, "Nationals without a Nation: The New York State Tribal
Indians," 22 Colum. L. Rev. 97 (1922) .
Powell, T. "State Inheritance Taxes on Indians : A Critique of Okla-
homa Tax Commission v. United States," 44 Colum. L. Rev. 836
(1944).
"The Power of a State to Impose an Income Tax on Reservation In-
dians," 6 Willamette L.J. 515 (1970) .
Price, M., "The Tax Exemption of Native Lands under Section 21 (d)
of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act," 6 U.C.L.A. Alas. L.
Rev. (1976).
Price, M., "Felix Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law," 21 Cath.
V.L. Rev. 229 (1971).
Price, M,, "Lawyers on the Reservation: Some Implications for the
Legal Profession L. & the Soc. Ord. 161 ( 1969 ) .
Pritchett, L., "Problems of State Jurisdiction over Indian Reserva-
tions," 13 De Paul L. Rev. 74 (1963) .
149
Kanquist, H., "The Effect of Changes in Place and Nature of Use of
Indian Eights to Water Reserved under the 'Winters Doctrine'," 5
Nat. Resources Law. 34 (1972).
"Regulation of Treaty Indian Fishing," 43 Wash. L. Rev. 670 (1968).
Reiblich, G., "Indian Rights imder the Civil Rights Act of 1968," 10
Ariz. L. Rev. 617 (1968).
Reid, J. P., "Conflict and Injustice: A Discussion of Francis Paul
Prucha's 'American Indian Policy in the Formative Years,' " 39
N.D.L.Rev. 51 (1963).
Reid, J., "Law and the Indians on the Arkansas Frontier: 'Stand
Stripped, but Strongly Nerved,' " 18 Ark. L. Rev. 1 (1964).
Reynolds, O., "Zoning the Reservation — Village of Euclid Meets Aqua
Caliente," 2 Atner. Indian L. Rev. 1 (1974).
Richards, C, "Federal Jurisdiction over Criminal Matters Involving
Indians," 2 S.D.L. Rev. 48 (1957) .
" 'Right of Tribal Self-Government' and Jurisdiction over Indian
Affairs," Utah L. Rev. 291 (1970) .
Rosenf elt, D., "Indian Schools and Community Control," 25 Stan. L.
Rev. 489 (1973).
"Ross, R., '''"Cultural Integrity and American Indian Education^'' 11
Ariz. L. Rev. 641 (1969).
Roy, E., "Economic Survey of American Indians in Louisiana," 3 Am.
Indian J. 11 (1973).
''''Ruiz V. Morton: Federal Welfare for Non-Reservation Indians,"
Utah L. Rev. (1973).
Russell, L, "The Indian Before the Law," 18 Yale L. J. 328 (1909).
Schaaib, W., "Indian Industrial Development and the Courts," 8 Nat.
Resources J. 303 (1968).
Schifter, R., "Trends in Federal Indian Administration," 15 S.D.L.
Rev. 1 (1970).
Schmeiser, D., "Indians, Eskimos and the Law," 33 Sask. L. Rev. 19
(1968).
Schmidhauser, J., "The Struggle for Cultural Survival : The Fishing
Rights of the Treaty Tribes of the Pacific Northwest," 52 Notre
Dame Law. 30 (1976).
Sclar, L., "Participation by Off-Reservation Indians in Programs of
the B.LA. and I.H.S.," 33 Mont. L. Rev. 187 (1972) .
150
Selander, K., "Section Z of the Indian Claims Commission Act," 15
Geo. Wash. L. Kev. 388 (1947).
Seymour, F., "Land Titles in the Pueblo Indian Country," 10 A.B.A. J.
36 (1924).
Shakman, M., "Federal Jurisdiction : A General View," 33 Md. L. Kev.
70 (1968).
Sonosky, M., "Oil, Gas and Other Minerals on Indian Reservations,"
20 Fed. B.J. 230 (1960).
Sparks, J., "The Indian Stronghold and the Spread of Urban Amer-
ica," 10 Ariz. L. Rev. 706 (1968) .
Staats, H., "Some Aspects of the Legal Status of Canadian Indians,"
3 Osgoode Hall L.J. 36 ( 1964) .
"State Extension of Cigarette Sales Tax to Indians," 11 Idaho L. Rev.
101 (1974).
Strong, S., "Federal District Court Has No Jurisdiction over a Lease
of Tribal Land to a Non-Indian," 27 Mont. L. Rev. 198 (1966).
Swan, R., "Indian Legal Services Programs : The Key to Red Power ?"
12 Ariz. L. Rev. 594 (1970).
"Systematic Discrimination in the Indian Claims Commission: The
Burden of Proof in Redressing Historical Wrongs," 57 Iowa L. Rev.
1300 (1972).
Taylor, B., "Indian Manpower Resources: The Experiences of
Southwestern Reservations," 10 Ariz. L, Rev. 579 (1968).
Five
Taylor, P., "Development of Tripartite Jurisdiction in Indian Coun-
try," 22 Kan. L. Rev. 351 (1974).
"Taxation : Immunity : Lessee of Restricted Indian Lands," 3 Okla. L.
Rev. 468 (1950).
"Taxation — Indians — Tax on Income Received from Sale of Mineral
Resources," 24 Geo. L. J. 486 (1936) .
Thompson, J., "Law Amongst the Aborigins of the Mississippi Val-
ley," 6 111. L.0. 204 (1924) .
Tureen, T. & F. O'Toole, "State Power and the Passamaquoddy Tribe:
'A Gross National Hypocrisy?' " 23 Maine L. Rev. 1 (1971).
Udall, S., "The State of the Indian Nation— An Introduction," 10
Ariz. L. Rev. 552 (1968).
151
Vance, J., "The Congressional Mandate and the Indian Claims Com-
mission," 45 N.D.L. Rev. 325 (1968-69) .
Veeder, W., "Indian Water Rights in the Upper Missouri Riv^er
Basin,'' 48 N.D.L Rev. 617 (1972).
Veeder, W., "Winters Doctrine Rights — Keystone of National Pro-
grams for Western Land and Water Conservation and Utilization,"
26 Mont. L. Rev. 149 (1965) .
Vollman, T., "Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country : Tribal Sov-
ereignty and Defendants' Rights in Conflict," 22 Kan. L. Rev. 387
(1974).
Wilkinson, G., "Indian Tribal Claims before the Court of Claims,"
55 Geo. L.J. 511 (1966).
Willacy, A., "Contract Approval : Attorneys and Indians," 15 How.
L.J. 149(1968).
Williams, E., "Too Little Land, Too Many Heirs — The Indian Heir-
ship Land Problem," 46 Wash. L.Rev. 709 ( 1971 ) .
Wise, J., "Indian Law and Needed Reforms," 12 A.B.A.J. 37 (1926).
Withington, W., "Kickapoo Titles in Oklahoma," 23 Okla. B.A.J. 1^51
(1952).
Withington, W., "Land Titles in Oklahoma under the General Allot-
ment Act," 31 Okla. B.A.J. 2320 (1960) .
Wolf., R., "Needed: A System of Income Maintenance for Indians,"
10 Ariz. L.Rev. 597 (1968).
Yankwich, L., "Law and Order under the Incas," 22 So. Cal. L.Rev.
133 (1949).
Young, R., "Interagency ConlElicts of Interest : "The Peril to Indian
Water Rights," L. & Soc. Ord. 313 ( 1972) .
Ziontz, A., "In Defense of Tribal Sovereignty : An Analysis of Judicial
Error in Construction of the Indian Civil Rights Act," 20 S.D.L.
Rev.l (1975).
REPORTS ISSUED BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE U.S.
Administration of programs for aid to public school education of In-
dian children being improved, B-161468, 5/28/70.
Administration of withdrawal activities by the Bureau of Indian Af-
fairs, Dept. of the Interior, March 1958, 8/58.
Assessment of Teacher Corps at Northern Arizona University and par-
ticipating schools on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations, B-164031
(1),5/13/7L
Better overall planning needed to improve the standard of living of
Wliite Mountain Apaches of Arizona, B-1 14868, 8/12/75.
Bureau of Indian Affairs contracts for automatic data processing, man-
agement services, and contracts awarded to the Colorado River
Tribes, B-1 14868, 12/8/73.
Changes needed in Revenue Sharing Act for Indian Tribes and Alas-
kan Native Villages, GGD-76-64, 5/27/76.
Coordination needed in the award of financial aid to Indian students,
B-1 14868, 9/8/75.
Effectiveness of the Bureau of Indian Affairs land management activi-
ties on three reservations in South Dakota, B-114868, 6/4/75.
Federal assistance to Quechan Indian Tribe for controlled environmen-
tal agricultural program, B-130515, 5/18/74.
Federally owned submarginal land within the Bad River Reservation
in Wisconsin proposed to be held in trust for the Bad River Commu-
nity, B-147652, B-1 47655, 5/23/72.
Federally owned submarginal land within the Fort Totten Reservation
in North Dakota proposed to be held in trust for the Devils Lake
Sioux Tribe, B-147652, B-147655, 3/24/72.
Financial and management activities of the Lunmi Indian Business
Council, Marietta, Washington, B-120214, 6/4/71.
Follow-up letter to Chairmen, House and Senate Interior and Insular
Affairs Committees on selected contracts, purchase orders and grants
awarded to Indian tribes and organizations during fiscal year 1971,
B-114686, 1/2/75.
(153)
154
Follow-up on certain matters discussed in our report entitled "Im-
provements Needed in the Assessment and Collection of Penalties —
Federal Coal Mines Health and Safety Act of 1969," B-170686,
12/22/72.
Funding of programs benefiting Indians, fiscal years 1972-1973, B-
114868, 7/11/73.
Funds provided to tlie National Tribal Chairman's Association by
Federal agencies in fiscal years 1972 and 1973, B-114868, 1/18/74.
Impact of grants to Indian tribes under the Emergency Employment
Act of 1971, B-163922, 3/14/73.
Improvements achieved in the management of supplies by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, B-114868, 7/31/68.
Improving federally assisted business development of Indian reserva-
tions, B-114868, 6/27/75.
Increased income could be earned on Indian trust moneys administered
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, B-114868, 4/28/72.
Indian natural resources — opportunities for improved management
and increased productivity, Part I : forest land, rangeland, and crop-
land, B-114868, 8/18/75.
Indian natural resources — Part II : coal, oil, and gas, better manage-
ment can improve development and increase Indian income and em-
ployment, B-114868, 3/31/76.
Ineffective HUD monitoring of Indian Housing Authorities activities,
B-114868, 10/4/74.
Infonnation in federal programs which benefit American Indians, B-
114868, 8/28/76.
Information on federally owned land in Oregon set aside for use by the
Burns Paiute Indian Colony, B-147652, B-147655, 9/12/72.
Information on federally owned submarginal land within the Black-
feet Resen-ation in Montana, B-147652, B-147656, 12/19/72.
Information on federally owned submarginal land within the Chey-
enne River Reservation in South Dakota, B-147652, B-147655,
1/26/73.
Information on federally owned submarginal land within and adjacent
to the Crow Creek Reservation in South Dakota, B-147652, B-
147655, 2/15/73.
Information on fedei-ally owned submarginal land within or near the
Fort Belknap Resei-vation in Montana, B-147652, B-147655,
10/12/72.
155
Information on federally owned submarginal land within or adja-
cent to the Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho, B-147652, B-147655,
11/3/72.
Information on federally owned submarginal land within the Fort
Peck Reservation in Montana, B-147652, B-147655, 2/15/73.
Information on federally owned sul)marginal land within or near the
Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation in Wisconsin, B-147652, B-147655,
2/15/73.
Information on federally owned submarginal land within the L'Anse
Reservation in Michigan, B-147652, B-147655, 9/8/72.
Information on federally owned submarginal land withm the Lower
Brule Reservation in South Dakota, B-1 14868, 2/13/73.
Information on federally owned submarginal land in Oklahoma set
aside for use by the Cherokee Tribe in Oklahoma, B-147652, B-
147655, 2/2/73.
Information on federally owned submarginal land witliin the Pine
Ridge Reservation in South Dakota and Nebraska, B-147652, B-
147655, 2/7/73.
Information on federally owned submarginal land within the Rosebud
Reservation in North Dakota and South Dakota, B-147652, B-
147655, 2/13/73.
Information on federally owned submarginal land proposed to be held
in trust for the Stockbridge Munsee Indian Community in Wiscon-
sin, B-147652, B-147655, 10/27/71.
Information on federally owned submarginal land within the Wliite
Earth Reservation in Minnesota proposed to be held in trust for
the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, B-147652, B-147655, 10/27/71.
Land leases entered into by the Navajo and Hopi Indian tribes, B-
177079, 1/29/74.
Land leases on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho, B-1 14868,
5/31/74.
Land management activities on three Indian reservations in South
Dakota can be improved, Bureau of Indian Affairs, B-114868,
6/4/75.
Letter report on selected activities of Indian Health Services, B-
164031(2), 7/9/70.
JNIedical research activities and sterilization of American Indians, B-
164031(5), 11/4/76.
Monitoring HUD investigation of the Pueblo of Laguna Housing
Authority, B-176794, 7/13/73.
156
The native enrollment and village eligibility provisions of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act, B-180940, 12/13/74.
New Navajo construction activities on the Navajo and Hopi Joint-Use
Area, B-114868, 3/4/74.
Non-discrimination provision of the Revenue Sharmg Act should be
strengthened and better enforced, B-146285, 6/2/76.
Opportunities for increasing effectiveness of federally assisted busi-
ness and commercial development efforts on Indian reservations,
B-114868 6 27/75.
Opportunity to improve Indian education in schools operated by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, B-114868, 4/27/72.
Possible irreguUrities in the use of federal funds in the administra-
tion of tho Chemawa Indian School in Marion Comity, Oregon,
B-114868, 11/20/72.
Possibilities of increased use of federal hospitals by Indian Health
Service-Portland Area Office, B-164031 (2) , 8/1/70.
Progress and problems in providing health services to Indians,
B-164031 (2), 3/11/74.
Review of Bureau of Indian Affairs contracts for Automatic Data
Processing Management Services, B-144868, 12/6/73.
Review of certain matters involving the disniptions at Wounded
Knee, South Dakota, B-114868, 5/7/73.
Review of programing, budgeting, accountmg, and reporting ac-
tivities of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Inte-
rior, B-114868, 11/19/58.
Review of proposed legislation for conveyance to certain Indian tribes
and groups of submarginal land administered by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, B-147652, B-147655, 6/72.
Review of the Bureau of Indian Affairs use of band analysis in deter-
mining the amount of Jolinson-O'Malley ( JOM) funds distributed
to Indian tribes in Arizona, B-161468, 4/25/75.
Review of the construction of housing projects built under HUD-
supported programs on the Blackfeet Reservation, B-114868,
12/27/74.
Selected activities of the Indian Health Service, 7/9/70.
Selected contracts, purchase orders, and grants awarded to Indian
tribes and organizations during fiscal year 1971, B-114868, 7/7/72.
157
Settlement of accounts of accountable officers at the Aberdeen Area
Office-Indian Health Service, B-164031 (2), 3/29/71.
Slow progress in eliminating substandard Indian housing, B-114868,
10/12/71.
Slow progress of federal and state housing programs in meeting hous-
ing needs in rural Alaska, B-118718, 9/24/74.
Spending for Indian programs in fiscal year 1968 and increases
through fiscal year 1973, B-114868, 5/7/73.
Study of health facilities construction costs, B-164031 (3), 11/27/72.
Survey of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's low
rent public housing progi-am at two Indian housing authorities . . .,
B-114868, 10/4/74.
Survey of federal efforts in Alaska to meet the national housing ob-
jectives, B-118718, 9/24/74.
Update of information concerning funds provided to the National
Tribal Chairmen's Association (NTCA) by federal agencies in
fiscal years 1972 and 1973, and since July 1973, B-114864, 1/18/74.
Vocational training contracts awarded to Engineering Drafting
School, Inc., Denver, Colorado, B-169333, 8/18/72.
APPENDIX C
FORMAT FOR PROPOSED ANNUAL REPORT
ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
Recommended in Chapter Two
(159)
93-440 O - 78 - 12
PART I— INDIAN TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND EXECU-
TIVE ORDERS
(This part would be based on Kappler's Laws and Treaties
Royce's Indian Land Cessions, and the National Archives'
List of Documents Concerning the Negotiation of Ratified
Indian Treaties. The organization could place the treaties,
agreements and executive orders in chronological order with
the maps and lists of related documents with the pertinent
treaty.)
PART II— HISTORY, LEGISLATION, AND CURRENT CON-
DITIONS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS
Note. — The following would be a "form" report filled out by the
Federal Officer in charge each year. It is based on a "questiomiaire on
a reservation profile" drafted by the Bureau of Indian Affaii-s a few
years ago. Some changes have been made.
A. Nomenclature
1. Proper name of tribes. — If unorganized, the generally accepted
name.
B. Land
1. Location. — Describe the reservation's geogi'aphic location within
a State or States and county or counties. Describe the proximity of
trade centers, identifying the same and giving a general statement
concerning size, population, and industry.
2. Climate. — State the length of the growing season, the length of the
tourist or recreational season, and give average temperature ranges
and average annual precipitation.
3. Historical. — Give the initial date of establishment of the reserva-
tion and groups and/or tribes for whom established, and citations to
treaties, laws, and executive orders and original and present land area
of the reservation.
4. Ownership. — (a) Tribal (trust and fee separately), trust al-
lotted. Government-owned (totals as of June 30, last fiscal year), (b)
Characteristics of ownership. Show the pattern of ownership, whether
it is checkerboarded, scattered or contiguous. Make a brief comment
on the possible improvement in the characteristics of ownership by
unitization, syndication, etc.
5. Present Land Use. — Include the major categories of land use on
the reservation with an average by percentage of each type, e.g. farm-
ing, grazing, commercial, etc. The percentage of Indian and non-
Indian use of Indian land should also be given. The various categories
of use should include a breakdown between individual Indian trust
land and tribal lands.
(161)
162
6. Heirship. — Number and percentage breakdown of allotted trust
tracts belonging to a single owner, 2-10 owners, over 10 owners. Num-
ber of probate cases completed during the last fiscal year and the num-
ber pending. Total acreage in heirship status. Describe the heirship
problem on the reservation.
7. Potential. — Give brief statement on reservation land potential.
Describe tribal land acquisition program, if any. Indicate income from
tribal land purchases made during the last year and the purchase
price.
8. Transportation. — Describe the major highways giving access to
the reservation and the intra-reservation roads. How many miles of
roads are there on the reservation? How many miles of roads are
Bureau maintained? What jurisdiction (s) maintain the balance? In-
dicate commercial airports and railroads nearest to the reservation.
List by percentage use of transportation, such as truck, car, horse,
public, etc. Does the present adequacy or inadequacy of the road sys-
tem hinder or help economic development of the reservation or the
Indian's work opportunities ?
C. Population
1. Resident Total. — (a) Give the total number of Indian residents
on the reservation, number of families, average number per family,
average age, and other pertinent data, (b) Provide similar informa-
tion for Indians residing adjacent to the reservation, i.e., service area
population, (c) State briefly population trends, (d) Provide total
number of adults (over 18), subdivided by sex, and the total number
of minors, (e) Provide the total number of Indians residing on the
reservation who are members of tribes other than those in residence.
2. Tribal Membership. — (a) Give total membership of tribe at pres-
ent time. If an estimate, indcate, (b) Dat« of latest tribal roll.
D. Tribal Administration and Government
1. Governing Body. — Give history of the tribal governing body, its
functions, and membership.
2. Budget. — Give income and expenditures for the last fiscal year
differentiating between tribal and other funds.
3. Member Civic Participation. — Describe the interest and activity
of tribal members in tribal or social affairs and off-reservation, non-
Indian affairs.
E. Disposition of Judgment Awards
1. Past. — Describe and evaluate the use of any judgment awards in
the past.
2. Current. — How does the tribe propose to use funds from the cur-
rent award? (Attach any resolutions or program outlines.)
F. Economic Activities and Potentials
1. Reservation Development. — Indicate both resources development
and industrial or commercial potential for the reservation.
2. Labor Force. — (a) List the number of resident Indians employed
on or near the reservation, (b) List the number of unemployed under
163
the heading temporary, seasonal, and permanent. A breakdown by sex
should be included. Also distinguish between those residing on the
reservation, and those adjacent to.
3. EmployTnent Opportunities. — (a) Briefly state the livelihood
source history of the Indian population, (b) Discuss the livelihood
sources for non-Indians on the reservation and in adjacent areas.
4. IncoTTie, from Reservation Resources. — (a) List the total income
from surface leases of all types, both to the Indians and non-Indians.
If free use, or less than fair market value, is approved to Indian opera-
tors, calculate the rental rate on the average income from non-Indian
use. (b) For grazing permits, use the same as above, (c) For timber,
give the gross dollar income from stumpage sold ; give estimated value
of free-use forest products harvested, (d) For minerals include in-
come from leases, bonuses, royalties, etc. (e) For commercial recrea-
tion, give the net profit from Indian and tribal recreational enter-
prises, (f ) Under business enterprises, list the net profit from tribal
enterprises other than recreation.
5. Income from Employment for Reservation Residents. — (a) This
should include a breakdown of those self-employed, and the Indian
operator's income, less economic rent for land and operating expenses,
(b) For those self-employed, other than in agricultural operations,
calculate the disposable income from the business, (c) Other than self-
employed should include all income from wages for Indians living on
and working on, or living on and working near the reservation. This
should include all types of employment (Federal Government, tribal,
industrial, and private business). A breakdown of major employers
by skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled workers should be included, (d)
Estimate the value of services received from the Federal Government
that a non-Indian in the surrounding area would have to pay for.
6. I'lvome from Resources and Employment. — For the purposes of
comparison, the total income from resources and employment should
be divided by the number of families on the reservation to indicate the
average amount per family that can be expected from these sources.
7. Median Effective Family Buying Income in Surrounding Coun-
ties. — Include a comparison of on-reservation income per family with
the income of non-Indians living in counties surrounding the reserva-
tion. This appears to be the best measure of income that should be ex-
pected for Indian reservation residents. A national or state income
level is too general and has less application to the program objectives.
G. Health
1. TJ.S. Public Health Service. — ^What facilities are provided by the
United States Public Health Service ?
2. Adequacy. — Are these facilities adequate to meet the health needs
of Indians ?
3. Use. — Are the facilities fully used by Indians ?
4. Needs. — What are the major health needs of the Reservation?
5. Water and Sanitation. — Describe briefly the availability of water
and sanitary facilities to meet normal needs for both family and com-
munity.
6. Comparison. — How do each of tliese services compare with those
of non-Indian families in the surrounding areas ?
164
H. Welfare
1. General Assistance. — Give the BIA general assistance for the last
fiscal year by number of cases, persons, and amount, and a breakdown
of high and low months for such assistance.
2. Other Financial Assistance. — ^Any Federal, State, or county assist-
ance to Indians received through county Departments of Public Wel-
fare. Include types of cases, total cases, and total number of persons
involved.
3. Commodity Programs. — The numbers involved and the cost of
any commodity program.
4. Summary. — Give total of tribal members receiving assistance and
indicate categories.
5. Attitudes. — What is the attitude of State and local officials re-
garding welfare to Indians ?
I. Education
1. Level. — Give the average educational level for the following age
groups in terms of the highest grade completed.
Male Female
18 to 25 yrs. inclusive
26to45yrs
46 yrs and over
2. School Age Population. — Give the numbers of resident tribal
members in the following age groups.
Male Female
1 to 5 yrs. inclusive
6tol3yr
14 to 18 yr
19 to 21 yr
3. School Facilities. — Give the following data regarding school fa-
cilities on the reservation (last fiscal year) .
System
Number of
schools
Capacity
Grades -
served
Indian enrollment
Elementary Secondary
Public schools
BIA schools .
Mission schools
4. Special. — (a) Describe briefly participation of Indian parents in
school affairs, (b) Wliat is the attitude of tribal members toward edu-
cation? (c) Special problems related to school attendance, dropouts,
etc. (d) Special services such as counseling, adult education, etc., avail-
165
able or needed in local schools and communities, (e) Scholarship aid
(if any) provided by the tribe.
5. If available, provide the same for 1, 2, 4 (a) and (c) concerning
the non-Indian population in surrounding area.
J. Housing
1. Existing Conditions. — (a) Briefly state the adequacy of exist-
ing housing, (b) Give the percent of Indian homes with electricity
and telephones, (c) Briefly describe the availability of water and sani-
tary facilities, (d) Provide the same information for non-Indians
of surrounding areas.
2. Housing Authority. — Has the tribe established a housing
authority ?
3. What are current plans for (a) new homes, and (b) repair of
homes?
K. Kelocation
1. Employment Assistance. — List the number of units and people
assisted in placement in direct employment through the employment
assistance programs.
2. Returnees. — Estimate by percentage those who have returned
from relocation and the major reason for returning.
L. Readiness of Indians to Manage Their Own Affairs
1. Problem Areas. — Evaluate the capacity of the members of this
particular tribe to manage their own affairs. Discuss any major prob-
lem areas.
2. Cultural Isolation. — ^This entails an evaluation of participation
by Indians on or off the reservation in what may be described as dis-
tinctly Indian culture (including language use, religious or secular
ceremonies, social mores relating to an older Indian culture, etc.) The
proportion of Indians (irregardless of degree of blood) contained in
the "core" of cultural Indians constitutes a good measure of the de-
gree of acculturation experiences by the tribe.
3. Non-Indian Community. — Evaluate the relationship of this tribe
or reservation to the non-Indian community, i.e., local, county and
State. This includes not only attitudes but abilities of these govern-
mental units to carry any economic services necessary for future
development.
4. Bureau Appropriations. — Provide breakdown of appropriations,
by activity, for three fiscal years: (a) Actual expenditures last fiscal
year; (b) Funds programmed current fiscal year (or expended where
applicable) ; (c) Funds programmed next fiscal year.
M. Other Government Programs
1. List all other Government programs in operation on the reser-
vation or assisting the reservation population.
2. Briefly describe each program, the number of participants, etc.
166
PART III-
ALL AGENCIES ^
This part would be based on a form annual report for all agencies,
bureaus, and departments, in the Federal Government responsible
for any aspect of Indian programs. The reports would contain — as
indicated in the outline below — specific information on the program
and expenditures. Should the Program Information Act (H.R. 3860,
Representative Roth) become law. Section 11 would prohibit all other
compendiums of program information "in order to make the catalog
the exclusive source of such program information both for the public
and for the program officers." In developing a proposed catalog of
Indian program information, every possible attempt could be made to
incorporate the findings and recommendations of the Roth Study in
determining the information to be included and the format as well.
This could be expected to result in an efficiently organized and ex-
tremely useful compilation with a minimum of unnecessary duplica-
tion of effort. If H.R. 3860 is enacted, this part would simply be an ex-
tract of all Indian programs from the proposed Catalog of Federal
Assistance Programs.
A. Identification of organization
1. Full legal name of program.
2. List each administrative level between the program and the high-
est agency or department.
3. Enabling legislation.
B. Funding
1. Actual expenditures for the past fiscal year.
2. Appropriations for the present fiscal year.
C. Purposes
1. Briefly outline the programs.
2. Are there any plans for expanding or reducing the programs ?
3. What has been the reaction of the Indians or Tribes ?
4. Are there any other Government programs closely related to this
one?
5. Wliat are the eligibility requirements for participation in the
program ?
D. Offices
1. List headquarters office, contact officer, and telephone number.
2. List all field offices, contact officers, and telephone numbers.
E. Personnel
1. How many employees were there on the last day of the preceding
fiscal year ?
2. Of this number how many were full time and how many part
time?
1 The idea for this part came from the Roth Study entitled Listing of Operating Federal
Assistance Programs as Compiled During the Roth Study by the Honorable William V. Roth
(Congressional Record, June 25, 1968, pp. H5441-5585 ; and House Document 399, 90th
Congress, 2d session). This catalog has been an extremely useful reference tool and the
writer has benefited not only from the information contained but the quick reference
organization and indexing of the report itself.
167
3. What were the total man-years expended in the previous fiscal
year ?
4. Wliat was the total administrative overhead of supplying, equip-
ping, and servicing those man-years ?
F. Publications
1. List all reports published during the past fiscal year by author,
title, and pagination.
2. Provide a brief summary for each publication.
PAET IV— STATISTICAL COMPILATION ON
INDIANS AND INDIAN RESOURCES
A. Population
1. Total Indian population in the United States (Bureau of the
Census).
2. Reservation population (Bureau of Indian Affairs) :
(a) Living on Reservations.
(&) Living on trust lands (not on Reservations) .
( c ) Living near Reservations.
3. Service population :
{a) Total "service" population and definition of same (Bureau
of Indian Affairs) .
(&) Total "service" population and definition of same (Divi-
sion of Indian Health, Public Health Service) .
B. Health
1. Infant death rate compared to non-Indian.
2. Life expectancy for Indians as compared to non-Indians.
3. General statement on the Indian's health today in comparison
with the non-Indian.
4. Programs.
{a) How many hospitals there are (location, number of beds,
personnel service population, etc.) .
(b) How many health centers (location, personnel, service pop-
ulation, etc. ) .
(c) How many health stations (location, personnel, service pop-
ulation, etc.).
{d) How many beds are available in community hospitals built
through Public Law 85-151 (name of hospital and location).
C. EmployTnent and unemployment
Total population :
1. Between the ages of 18 and 55 able to work ;
{a) On the reservation, male, female.
( h ) Near the reservation, male, female.
2. Working full time.
{a) On the reservation, male, female.
( h ) Near the reservation, male, female.
3. Working part time.
{a) On the reservation, male, female.
( & ) Near the reservation, male, female.
168
4. Between (the ages of 18 and 55, physically able and wanting to
work, now unemployed.
(a) Comparison with non-Indian labor force in area.
D. Education
1. Level. — Average educational level for the following age groups
in terms of the highest grade completed :
Male
Female
18 to 25 yr inclusive —
26 to 45 yrs - -
2. School Age Poyvlation-
the following age groups :
-Number of resident tribal members in
IVIale
Female
1-5 yr inclusive --.-.--
6tol3yr — -
14 to 18 yr
19 to 21 yr
3. School facilities. — On the reservation.
Enrollment
System Number Capacity Elementary Secondary
Public.
BIA....
Mission.
Other...
E. Land
1. Total acreage of tribal land.
2. Total acreage of tribal fee land.
3. Total acreage of tribal tnist land.
4. Total acreage of individual trust land.
5. Total acreage of individual trust land in heirship status :
{a) Number of tracts.
{h) Number with 2-10 owners.
(c) Number with more than 10 owners.
6. Total acreage of Federal lands on Indian reservations.
F. Law and Order
1. Number of reservations under State law.
2. Number of reservations having :
(a) Traditional courts.
(&) Courts of Indian Offenses.
169
PART V— STATE AGENCIES AND PRIVATE ORGANIZA-
TIONS IN THE FIELD OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
A. State Agencies
Note. — General statement on each state agency, operation, staff,
budget, programs, publications, etc.
B. Private Organizations
Note. — General statement on each private organization, officers, op-
eration, budget, publications, programs, etc.
PART VI— PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS IN THE FIELD
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Note. — Those published on a continuing basis by all levels of Gov-
ernment concerned with the Indian problem, the private organization
publications, tribal newspapers, etc. The intent would be to annotate
each publication indicating content and providing thereby a compre-
hensive list of publications containing current information from all
over the United States.
APPENDIX D
FEDERAL PROGRAMS SERVING INDIANS
Cited in Chapter Six
(171)
173
o o o woo
o o in 0) o o
g o (
tii-
T yj o <
I r-T 00 O 0) <
r~ tM o JJ <
I o ro >,^ tNi (
rH i3 a\ CT\ (N
O O ^ — ft
u:
rH 4J ^ 3
4J (1)
H Q O '
hi
i^asf^
III
ill
pL. fl fl
■d-s-
llll
111
all
•-ass
f1:
g.s
111
III
121
> H H 0) N (1) ^
Taxi's 3'.H §rH ui
Q^ Q t3 -H fO
■a dj M d-a o
174
H Q O rn >i-H CM
O t-^ Xi a\ a\ r
5!§
II
o a; 01 4-1 ■-
„ f-! H '=^ P
^8
lA-<^-b'
~ "^ i w 8
M ID O 5 -H
(1, m a o -M
.^§L
III!
^1
Hi
0) in -H
O P Vj -u
u 3) nj c
S 0-S 01
to ft Q -s Q ., :: .
3 +j o in
cms
1 5 ^ .3 1
!l
^illi
o ra 8 § *
S S as S
175
o o o o
O O U] o o
B\
fl4
ON (3
o o o o
r|s!
•T h > 1^
a C o
m ■^ to in *^
i-~ 1^ M r^ r^
►^ _- en
Ft
1 » p
I (0 ^ c -T
U) H -H O JJ
0) (0 tn -3 cj i
' »•-! o -P CO • I
M 4-1 3 C W .
s llaL
s J" ^ .-1 .3 ^ 3
§ -s j= s ■§ -^ ^ a
^as§
S o o 3
U] rd C
^ .1 a 1 1 1 S
c:3''-'4Jlljol4JM-l
a) m c o aid c rH S * ■ H
cur-i o <D o -p -Hy-H
rox;in.H'ac>iram'd
■H O -H
I i I s §
fl el's o a
I 1^1
■U M (d
.§S8
93-440 O - 78 - 13
176
II
H
5s
o o o o o
n (0 •<j- in U3
1^ M !--• r~ r-
^'.^§
§ r~
III
i^'
^5
•U5
H o I -H o n a -3 ro -HOW
nlllllllllll
si
31-
•H T] ■'W S
O O ON O O
O O CM O O
CJ ro •<J' I
1^ r^ r~ I
to 01
■||.
g ,
^ i ,d
"O O 3 i 0) 0)
851
mil k
"S M-l 'd S S 0) O
o 4-1 -p ro •
Cn > -H 0)
1 5
o5 §>
2ms
(0 CO
10 D a -H c
c 8 ° -s r3
lii O 4J (0 in
177
.^3
°^ g .S ^ 5
fi5 rH Qj ,
P g cn *
o m (d 10 3
II
1 s al ^ §
.5 Si
» ° A) ^3 S § a
-HOdooiaciiD
a 5 s s rd "s 5
tig
i 1^.
.^1
^j o a
53 y a
-j-l m
o
si
OJ .0
!i
178
I o o
^3
S5
I,
(D Vj
in o,
5i^'
lb
S|||
S^
1^
II
• 8:
in -a u)
5ll
.8-^5! c-g.
W E rH O Q 9
a^S^„Sg^-J<n;
Jl
:^.'S
O tn "O
g<
.§11
o o o o
ro -^ 01 in v£)
4-) J • D in
1^ -
iJ O -4J CJ
to '■om •
B&1
o g n
J-i en Q)
8 C +J Q
cXJ o
si
i-SsJS
■PiS
g-i^'
S in
■a in
179
o o o o ---
o o o o o
o o o o o
. » .. . «CJ
in in '^ o -
n (i3 o o ro
"^ i in in V
tj- in in vo to-
^r^ M r^ r^ ^
o o o o
!!
0) y? 8
J 0)
^3 Jo -H .
C (1) O -P
I 111
-8)
5m3 fHcS.qfloouicfiioa
i-iiHCino-pujocjJcU'tai; ■amm
^s
J3 !3 'a S
\i4-i o nJ nJ -H
:mM'
B -r-i 0)
O S 0) 5
nm
^i-
■H to O
ss
s ^.
^^^■^gs^:ii-
.1^'
fi <H Id
III
180
181
^'h
2§
£ o 5 r- m g>ai c
O O CTi 4J o o
r^ o <£■ -H 00 T
o o o o
b '
u
-,n
ss
^..
VL>
■a o
sT!
B
J
d
Stat
67-3
594;
27,
66;
II
1§ I s
Q 5 m 8 3 a a^
.^a.
nr-| m
ae's-
s 1 § I §
fflfflE&njinpuNioin
*
m
^?
fag
1^
■vl (d
S .-S •;^ '^ g^-^ .H 1^ 1 1 °
"II §11 ll ill
S Sen ■g3rsfx:3n)
e§SS^^l8l&5§
I -B I I
§.11 a 8
tn "O 4-> x;
^sl'dl
^^Smtilg^'8
en
ff.s
§3
'^1
aj OJ g 4J
s"r|
182
CT> o^ 4-1 (
PS §
fO o o
^^O •• KD
CT\ rH (U O
ro Ln 4J in
ro T in 1J1
1^3 I
O Ul
8&
si
CN 4-1 O i
0) 3 m I ooo
'^ S ^ "* -a -H 4J
o -'^ u 'O a 3
o . • e fiC to
4J _ ij _
r^ rH ai U
5 J.'
HI -H OJ 0)
■r4 > m 4-1
m " C ■
1^5 i1
^§1
tji tn
Sis
^1
4J 0) 43 m ui
2 o !q £
0) io tn
III
1^
^^
g H a
g a, a) tn ■
.a 5 g a ^
ti§§
5^,
I ^ .3 fi .a -d § I
.^■s.s5!fBJ
gl^3§a
,S85
St
10 a I -H tn
•HO) 2 U -S
j-i (1) tn 4J
O B 4-1
ait
c i §
H §" C -U
, ,1^
ij ^ g i ^
e c - o <D
i i^ I a I
1^ g fi 1 1-
183
ml
in Kay£> oo in
< jH 0^ u P u
T3 o d roD
C CN "^ in '"' in
CO . (N ^
^ B 5 in -o
P 2 01 CO in •«•
0^1
o o o o
>J,i
I
CO
§ J
M ° in . '-i
■H +J 1^ iJ 03
S <^ M On' 3
U) 01
m m c §
lis
•;^ .3 .3 ,
lia
I.. .5
U1 5 +^ -O 5 «) I
0) -tJ 6 $ H
ri
i
0) a p g
ll'l
m +J ro .H era
i2 3 a 5 ;;>-.i 5 8
dJ It) ~rH S C CO
kh^^h
I
5^
as
p -H -P nl fi in -H
55
Hi.
Si!
01 .H -5 3 0) s
•H -O > 4J 01 -H
n) -H 01 fi M
g a S 8 1 .5 §
111
184
< < < <
r- r- r- c-
o o o o
o o o
00 O'X)
<T •• O .H
r^ a) in o
in B «5 in
!■«•
I!
•y "i"* i-i _ "^ I
<^ jH ft tj '(H '
£ O 4J in Q 3 OS
fn 2 t/3 00 Q -0 ^
U • o J
D en -U -
ininjgS
4J 01 +1 '
CO 73 §
Ul 01
I
01 •
01
°.§
c >
.3 I
li
11
ll
M 01 I c
O 0) 01 ID
s I "^ i
u3 It) g
^ ^ 01 ';^ 8 3
8 S +j o -p p
o ffl gJ "8 jj fi
lis
ill
•i ^
l^'iil,
ii:
01 n +J
S5^
C 'd ID '3 w
ill
tn T)
ess
Pi
a-'s
3 -H
lii
185
+j " +j .
CM 02 to
w in
(1) > I 00
1
- -d ^ O m 6
•• b ■a O'gS 5
r~ r- w r- i^
aB».n
■a o rM
IkiikBU^ |-
§.s
1 ^
10 (1) & I
i§1'.H X) -d S •d OQ 3 ii 1
III
sag'
> O 3
ui in
5
5 q ° H I
I -6 Si
I § 1 1 ^ 1
W p H '^ 6 •'^
" ^ 8
III
q , 5
s « « I -S i
■a >*-! o XI MX)
:.!
S.2
oi'HCC'HOnJui
•S 5 O 42 -H
J
IT) 01
'H ' 8
ui in c
•I '^ •"
■a t) m
58! !8
"I
186
IF
%l
&3
i^ 1^ W r- I
tit
^ O 3 r- I
ji'kD g 00 o\
W P tS
8
ii
A-S
^ 5 S ° S
|"§S§.
b-i CO n
ft M-J ■<i t^
r~ §
u-ic<cr.o<wgf?!
F2cocoi-l4JrHm(N^u-i(
15"
- to -
(T. iH rd r^
CU eC T ft
^1
■At
ill;
'S oi
lllll
31
>toqiB p^^cc- o
II
.laS-3,
2S
B C M
IP
187
. ^ A' S ^ S -i u
h •* w p (d o> LO
^ cx) . -q >{ -u <N
• tN a (d g jJ Ln
24Jin S-Hi4jo«T^
I
Q a o
fl^ jH ol U '> ^ JJ
U Si .^ ui iS CO
CO • (N o D -3 o
VD O O O
n o o o
MOO •• O
c.'ocCfi^'
CO tM •tj CO yr
^D I^ [^ S S
(0 o m -P
ID <U (0
•| s f I °
3 8 a 8^ o
8 8t,€
!8^|
s^^1^-^-^^
H W N M nj (D -H
I PI -S^ft^
III la S
I as
-p jj 3 vj
< o c
S 01 -P
w -a -p --j -H
-y (u rti-a c o
S ^ S S 8 -IJ
g-5
iiii
lis
3 (1) c
§J3
188
55
8&
gl
§;;;
3 jii
gs .
<: o 1 -»
111
< 8 -S Q,
- -p m
311
■S-cJ
H^3
S ffi O ^ ■§ 5 10 '^
• •'c -H m M o '8
3 o -vl 'b "O o u
5^.«
^I.s
:§i.
H ft rb S fl <*-l
olo J3 a a o
8-S
•^3
fill
■5a)''ywOC!H>P
§-d
s .^ c -^ i 5
c CO +J 3
Xitip-pajrain
m
■ 5 §.3
gtJ-3-g
liillll
XS -H .H en >^ >H
c ^ &.t^ a 3 3 1^ a
8
. Sis
o !2 S
gf
iiiil
!3 -rH O -Q P
189
[^ o o o
fo o •• r-To
O O (d O .H
PI
as P. <
o o o
o o o
o o ■■ o
^ in tM
+J n ro ■
b - • w
a) rH 00 u-i
TS o in
C IN
P 2 01 ^ .
> O ■>!
■H a tt) -J
01 en t3 -H
^■s
iii
S=.^
•H 13 O C g
p 01 43 -r-iU-l ft
i) o
C H U
'UP
ill
•^-^oTgl^lfSS
1i! I 8 ^ 1 -c! 3 ^ 11
eillliiiij.
1^
ft O gi
8 3 01
s^§
eg
fs
§1
It
O la ui
U) JJ 3 (1)
§;g.g §
im
8! 5!;
O V
57
:^
sg;
. m m r
U Eh 3 U > .
i^ , ^-g'
h^SI
°ll^f.^
rHil(Uoi(n-PB3
T) 0) D E W C
s Jig's ss ^.rti
ro Cr a O -r-i O .-I
e5.S
^lll
^ .5 .3 g
u o
III
alii
191
o o
o o
.00
§^-i
iS -a [^ Si-H in
^5
S. ^ t
4J -p s
i a I m
d'U
3^<
1&I
.§8
5^
tn to
tji It)
ip
M iD 0) -H 8 0) j^
5c.
a (1) 0)
ess
Its
8
III
m
93-440 O - 78 - 14
APPENDIX E
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE TENTATIVE
FINAL DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(193)
COMMENTS ON THE TENTATIVE DRAFT REPORT
OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COM-
MISSION
CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgement 198
Affiliation of Arizona Indian Centers " 199
Agriculture, U.S. Department of:
Office of Equal Opportunity 203
Food and Nutrition Service 207
Akwesasne Mohawk Tribal Council 209
Alaska Federation of Natives 210
Alaska Native Foundation 212
American Indian Business Association 213
Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc 217
Beane, Syd, Executive Director, Phoenix Indian Center 219
Benton Paiute Reservation 221
Berry Creek Tribal Council, Maidu 223
Binder, Dennis : 227
Borbridge, Commissioner John 230
Browning Public Schools, Montana 240
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nome, Alaska, Agency 274
CaUfornia, Department of Housing and Community Development 275
Cammack, Rose - — 279
Commerce, U.S. Department of. Economic Development Administration. 280
Connecticut, State Department of Environmental Protection 286
Creek Nation 287
Dellwo, Rudolf and Schroeder 300
Deloney, George C 306
Evans, Nancy 314
Friends Committee on National Legislation 319
Gallup-McKinley County Public Schools 321
Harvey, Cecil L 322
Horman, Calvin 325
Housing Assistance Council, Inc 326
Hawaii, Gov. George R. Ariyoshi 327
Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Department of. Office of Education __ 328
Houma Alliance, Inc 330
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of, Denver Regional
Office- - 332
Indian Claims Commission 334
Indian Education Conference, Arizona State University 337
Indian Health Service 381
Indian Rights Association 383
Interior, U.S. Department of, Assistant Secretary James A. Joseph 386
Introduction 197
Jagnow, Earl 388
Johnston, Senator J. Bennett 393
Kidwell, Clara Sue 394
Kodiak Area Native Association 398
Laguna Pueblo ^y°
Lembke, Dale and Bonnie ^Ji
Livingston, Robert J ^1*
Louisiana, Gov. Edwin Edwards jl^
McAlear, James H 416
Montana Department of Community Affairs 420
National Association of Counties 422
(195)
196
Page
National Congress of American Indians 493
National Indian Education Association 557
National Tribal Chairmen's Association 567
Native American Center 585
Native American Coalition of Tulsa 586
Native American Rights Fund 588
New Mexico Indian Tax Study Commission 686
New Mexico, Gov. Jerry Apodaca 688
New Mexico, Health and Social Services Department 690
Oklahoma City Urban Indian Health Project 693
Oregon, Commission on Indian Services 695
Piegan/Blackfeet 698
Prescott Indian Center 701
Patterson, Bradley H., Jr., Brookings Institution 704
Phoenix Indian Center 707
Pit River Home and Agricultural Cooperative Association 708
Poco, Lonnie 712
Pueblo Council, the All-Indian 716
Ruffing, Lorraine T., and Trosper, Ronald L 776
Rufal Alaska Community Action Program 779
Sell, Lue A 781
Shaan Seet, Inc 782
Shinnecock Tribe 784
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 789
Sioux Indian Center 795
Sitnasuak Native Corporation 796
Squaxin Island Tribe, Chairman Calvin J. Peters 799
South Bay Indian Services, Inc 800
South Dakota, Gov. Richard F. Kneip 802
Stichting N.A.N.A.I 808
Taylor, Theodore W 809
Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska, Central Council 820
Ute Indian Tribe 855
Veeder, William H., Attorney at Law 424
Washington State Native American Education Advisory Committee 861
Winslow Indian Center 864
Wolfe, Arlene, et. al. Flathead Reservation 869
Yakima Indian Nation, Confederated Tribes and Bands 874
Ziontz, Pirtle, Morisset, Ernstoff & Chestnut 876
APPENDIX E
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE TENTATIVE
FINAL DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
INTRODUCTION
The letters and comments which appear in this appendix relate
to a working draft of the final Commission report which was given
wide public distribution prior to preparation of the final report. As
work on the development of the final report commenced, it was recog-
nized that much time and attention had been given to eliciting the
opinion of the public, both Indian and non-Indian, on the problems
affecting Indian people, but an additional opportunity was necessary
for the public to evaluate and criticize the findings and recommenda-
tions the Commission proposed to make as solutions to these problems.
In early March of 1977 some 1,200 copies of the p)roposed Tentative
Final Draft of the Commission Report were mailed to all Indian
tribes, including federally and non-federally recognized tribes, Indian
groups and organizations, both rural and urban. Governors and agen-
cies of various States with an interest in Indian affairs, interested Con-
gressmen and Senators, and numerous Indian and non-Indian people
and organizations. A request was made that they review the tentative
draft and supply comments by April 23, 1977, in order that their com-
ments could be utilized in the completion of the final report.
The comments included in this appendix were reviewed by the Com-
mission as the final draft was developed. Many of the suggestions were
incorporated into the final report and many of tV>e criticisms resulted
in substantial revision of both text and recommendations. The chapters
on Federal administration and economic development were particular-
ly affected by these comments. Other comments were not incorporated
into the final report. Some of these comments, particularly those relat-
ing to problems in Alaska, were seen to be substantive and meritorious.
However, time and manpower simply did not permit a broadening of
the report to address the additional issues presented.
Finally, many of the comments simply represented a general opposi-
tion to the findings and recommendations of the Commission. Some of
these comments raise substantial issues that deserve serious considera-
tion. Most of these issues have been addressed in the final report. Other
of these comments reflect an emotional attitude that can only be
described as anti-Indian per se and not worthy of consideration. All
of these comments are included in this appendix.
(197)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Commission wishes to extend its appreciation to the University
of Minnesota School of Law for the comments of its student body on
the tentative final report. Due to the volume of this material, it is not
possible to include these papers in this appendix. However, they are
included in the Commission bibliography and may be located aniong
all of the Commission documents on file at the National Archives.
(198)
199
We recognize that you may not be able to thoroughly read and evaluate all parts
of this Report within the time allowed for cement. However, in order to
include your carments in our Final Report, this questionnaire must be conpleted
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than i^ril 16, 1977.
Our Final Report must be carpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Connission approval.
(Arizona Indian Centers, Inc.)
^^AM E Affiliation of Arizona Indian Centers ADDRES S 2721 N. Central Av e .
. . #908
TRIBE/ORGANIZATION Indian organizations Phoenix. Ari-zona 8 5004
A. PLEASE CIRCLE Om TO INDICATE YOUR IDENTITY AS :
Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body Individual Indian
Matiber of Congress (Organiza tional Governing Board}
State Official Private Citizen
PLEASE EVALUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKING THE BLANK WHICH MOST NEARLY
REPRESENTS YOUR OPINION.
The report as a whole is
I. History
II. Legal Concepts
III. Conditions
IV. Federal- Indian Relations
V. Tribal Government
VI. Federal Administration
VII. Economic Development
VIII. Social Services
IX. Off-Reservation
X. Terminated Indians
XI. Non-Recognized Indians
XII. Special Problem Areas
XIII. General
200
C. HAVING READ THE RECOiyiMENDATIONS AT THE END OF EACH SECTION, PLEfiSE A^EWER
THE FOUXWING QUESTIONS .
1) Which recormsndations should be given priority status? Why?
SEE ATTACHED
2) Are there reccranendations with which you disagree? Why?
see attached
3) Are there recontnendations you would like to have added?
see attache d
4) Do you feel the content of the report provides an accurate, useful
picture of the situation?
see -attached
5) Do you have any additional ccrmsnts?
see attached
F. SPACE IS PROVIDED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR YOUR SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS.
201
N/^E Affiliation of Arizona Indian Centeff CDRESS 2721 N. Central Avenue
#908
TRIBE/ORGANIZATICN Indian organizations ph oo n-iv. Ari^.nna 8S004
RECCMMENDATICNS
Chapter ( 9 ) Page ( 30) Paragrafii ( 2 )
In the section beginning with the words "
it is suggested that the following addition.
deletion or change in wording be made, or the following concept expressed
differently:
202
The members of the Board of the Affiliation of Arizona
Indian Centers (Arizona Indian Centers, Inc.) did not
have time in the short time permitted them to read the
entire report but as A.A.I.C. is an organization of
Urban Indian Centers that give direct service to Urban
of f -reservation Indians they directed the time they had
to the section of the report dealing with of f -reservation
Indians .
The Board of A.A.I.C. strongly supports the recommendations
of this section. They offer the following additions to the
recommendations regarding Urban Indian Centers; Funds
available for financial support of Urban Centers should be
based on need not population.
Also Urban Indian Centers in order to properly serve the
Indians in Urban off-reservation areas should be eligible
for certain Economic Development Funds for facilities
and give Centers the option and ability to develop businesses
along with our Centers.
203
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
I 1977
mvi
IN REPLY REFER TO: 7160
Indian Desk
Senator James S. Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review
Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building, Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk:
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Tentative Final Report of
the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Three areas discussed in
the report are of particular interest to me. These are: the inclusion
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Indian Desk in a separate
Indian department or agency, consolidation of all Indian land acquisition
programs, and the effectiveness of USDA nutrition programs.
On pages 128-9 of Chapter Six on Federal Administration, the report
suggests that secondary consideration be given to placing the Department
of Agriculture's Indian Desk within an independent Indian agency. The
purpose would be to "consolidate programs from federal departments which
are a part of a separately established Indian service structure which
exists because of the unique status of Indian tribes." I do not disagree
with this objective. However, our Indian Desk does not administer any
programs for Indians. Rather, it promotes Indian participation in USDA
programs generally available to all citizens. Such an advocacy function
within the Department will still be needed even if a separate agency
administering Indian programs is created.
Regarding Indian land acquisition programs, I support the Commission's
recommendation (chapter 7, page 35, number 8) that Congress mandate the
Executive to study the feasibility of consolidating the Farmers Home
Administration and Bureau of Indian Affairs tribal land acquisition
programs. While the Farmers Home Administration has provided most of the
funding for tribal land acquisition and offers considerable expertise on
the agricultural utilization of such land, a larger and more flexible
program is needed. As noted in other recommendations (pages 7-34 and 7-
35), consideration should be given to increasing appropriations, revising
204
loan procedures to facilitate tribal purchase of key tracts of land,
and broadening the category of eligible lands.
The section on Nutrition (chapter 8, pages 43-48) clearly describes
nutritional deficiencies experienced by Indians and the inadequacies of
the USDA commodity and food stamp programs. Unfortunately, there are
few specific suggestions for improving these programs other than the
broad recommendation (page 74) that: "USDA should review and revamp its
food supply system to insure consistent delivery of nutritious, health-
giving foods to the Indian people, with particular emphasis on high-risk
groups ... and to insure the combined, simultaneous use of both food
stamps and donated foods for those tribes desiring it."
Also, I question several statements about USDA food programs. First,
the report asserts on page 8-45 that "USDA foods, by any standard, lack
adequate nutritional value" and that "USDA's standard commodity distribu-
tion list represents a nutritious food balance." Besides the apparent
contradiction, it should be noted that the Family Food Distribution
Program (commodities) is designed as a supplementary food source. I
realize that for many Indians, commodities constitute the major part of
their diet. A redefinition of the commodity program is perhaps in order.
Second, the report asserts that USDA programs for high risk groups are
inadequate because of unrealistic eligibility requirements and inappro-
priate diets (page 8-46). I assume that the reference is to the Special
Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) which
requires that a competent professional authority determine the nutritional
need of recipients through a medical or nutritional assessment. This does
not seem unreasonable since the purpose of the program is "to provide
supplemental nutritious food as an adjunct to good health care during such
critical times of growth and development in order to prevent the occurrence
of health problems" (Child Nutrition Act of 1966, section 17). The
supplemental foods provided include iron-fortified infant formula, milk,
cheese, eggs, cereal and juices, all of which are nutritionally appropriate
for program recipients.
Finally, the report maintains that "for those who cannot surmount these
obstacles [of the Food Stamp Program], there is no alternative, since USDA
does not want to operate a commodity program and a stamp program simulta-
neously in the same community, despite Indian opinion that such flexibility
is needed in order to meet diversified needs" (pages 8-46 and 8-47). In
fact, though the Department has strongly encouraged the use of the Food
Stamp Program, Indian reservations are the only localities where dual
operation of the Food Stamp and Food Distribution Programs has been allowed.
205
I want to commend the American Indian Policy Review Commission and staff
for the work you have done. I hope that these comments will contribute
to the effectiveness of the Final Report and the ultimate implementation
of much needed changes for Indian people.
Sincerely,
/ Director
206
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
WAY 31 1977
IN REPLY 7160
REFER TO: INDIAN DESK
Honorable James S. Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Comnission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building, Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed are comments of the Food and Nutrition Service
on pertinent sections of the Tentative Final Report of
the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Although
I realize that the Final Report was submitted to Congress
on May 17, 1977, this information may still be useful.
Sincerely,
Director
Enclosure
207
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE
KLPI.V TO WASHINGTON. DC 20250
ATTN OF: ,,„.,
MSY U. 197/
SUDJECT: Tentative Final Report of American
Indian Policy Review Commission
'^O: Stuart Jaraicson, Supervisor
Indian Desk
Attached are our comments on the American Indian Policy Review
Commissinn's findings on nutrition from their Tentative Final
Report.
We regret the inadvertant delay in providing these comments.
/'w'H. A. Scurlock, Dir^>5^or
Civil Rights Staff
93-440 O - 78 - 15
208
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE COMMENTS ON TENTATIVE FINAL REPORT OF
THE Al-IERICAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
We share the concerns of the Commission of making a nutritious diet
available to Indians. Following are comments on the distribution
of foods to Indians (Reference pages 8-45 and 8-46 of your report)
and Food Stamp Program (Reference pages 8-46-through 8-48) .
Distribution of Foods to Indians
USDA's commodity list consitutes a nutritious food balance. All
twenty-two food items are made available to the states. It is the
State's option to select the foods for distribution to its recipients.
It may select all or only a portion of the items to distribute. The
variety of foods is not always accepted by the states, foods accepted
are not always distributed, and food distributed may not be accepted
by the families. The nutritional goal of the USDA Food Distribution
Program is to provide 100 percent of the Recommended Dietary Allowance
(RDA) to recipients. If foods are used as recommended they provide the
RDA for protein, calcium, iron, vitamins A and C, thiamin, riboflavin,
and 65% of calories needed.
The Special Supplemental Food Program for "Women, Infants and Children
(WIC) provides funds to supply nutritious food supplements to persons
in the high risk groups (pregnant women, infants and children up to 5
years of age who are determined by competent professionals to be at
"nutritional risk" because of inadequate nutrition or income). We
consider this a viable method of certification because it provides
the opportunity to reach more than one problem. It enables persons
who have nutritional deficiency to get a dietary supplement and
because it requires certification by a competent professional, other
health problems can be identified and remedied.
Food Stamp Progra m
The Food Stamp Division of the Food and Nutrition Service Sponsored
a national workshop on "Food Issues Affecting the Indian Population."
About 60-80 Indian Representatives from various tribes were invited
to attend. Many of the Tentative Final Report concerns were addressed
during that workshop. The indefinite continuation of the Food Distri-
bution Program to all areas v;here the Food Stamp Program is not meeting
adequate foods needs was one of the major concerns. This action would
require legislative changes in the Food Stamp Act.
A bill has been introduced Xi/hich provides for the simultaneous
operation of the Food Stamp and Food Distribution Programs on Indian
Reservations.
209
TRIBAL Mohawk ladlon Bm—mUoB
Tribal Oflict 518 358 2960 4, Q_ Akwotam {HogaatbaigX Ntw York 13655
Education Olllct S\8 358 2980
Plaaatng Oilict 518 358 4808
April 29. 1977
AKWESASNE
Senator James S. Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2d and D Streets, S.VJ.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk:
In reviewing the final text of the American Indian Policy
Review Commission, the St. negis Kohawk Tribal Council wishes
to comment on the findings.
First and foremost is the recognition of the treaty
rights of all Native Americans. Native peoples signed these
documents in good faith and now the United States Government
should honor them.
Any reorganization of the B.I. A. that will improve ser-
vices to the Indian people should be done, since the primary
function of the B.I. A. is service for Indian people, their
needs should be of utmost importance.
If it is felt that the Bureau has mismanaged tribal trust
lands then this should be brought out so that all Americans
might understand the hardships that Native Americans endure
in their fight to control their own destiny.
On the subject of sovereignty, all tribes have felt that
they are nations within a nation, and the St. Regis Mohawks
are no exception. Congress must act on the issues at hand
relating to sovereignty of Indian tribes.
.Ma^
I. '^1 f^c^J>^
Charles T. Terrance
Leonard V. Garrow
210
ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INC,
ntegrity. Pride in Heritage. Progress
April 25, 1977
Ernest L. Stevens, Director
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S.W., Room 3158
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Stevens:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft
final report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. We
are primarily interested in the areas affecting Alaska and in
general the policy affecting Alaska Native "tribes".
We wholeheartedly endorse the reorganization of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs with the transfer of authority and responsibility
to the local level. We also concur with the organization of an
independent agency concerned totally with Indian affairs, and which
would include the various Indian-oriented agencies presently in
existence under the umbrella of various agencies. A better coordina-
tion of Indian Programs through the various agencies is needed and
would only serve to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of
these respective departments.
We are pleased the Commission agreed to include in its
report, a special section concerning Alaska; we concur with the
Commission's recommendations outlined in this section.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views
and recommendations. I v;ould, at this time like to take this
opportunity to express our appreciation for the fine work done by
the Commission and hope your final recommendations to the Congress
will be given the proper recognition they deserve.
is, please do not
• 550 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 • PHONE (907)274-3611
211
mestem union
^^^ Telegram
NFB182 WAF205(205 8>(1-02475SA119)PD 04/29/77 2056
ICS IPMAFUB AHQ
107 A 03043 NL ANCHORAGE ALASKA 133 04-29 400P ADT
PHS m ERNIE STEVENS
AICRICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COHHISSION
HOUSE OFFICE BLDG ANNEX NO 2 202-225-1284
eNO AND D STS S V
WASHOC 20919
REQARDING NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUNDS COWENTINQ ON THE ALASKA
SECTION OF AIPRC REPORT AFN OFFERS FOLLOWING COMMENTS.
1. THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON ANCSA SPECIFICALLY DIRECTS THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND GOVERNOR OF ALASKA TO
PROTECT THE SISSISTENCE RIGHTS OF ALASKA NATIVES
CONTRARY TO NARFS ASSERTION THAT SUCH RIGHTS ARE TERMINATED.
2. ANCSA AS CLEARLY STATED IN AIRPCS ANALYSIS DID NOT TERMINATE
F.,», (R5..j!*L*SKA NATIVES! THEREFORE FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL LAW
Telegram
REGARDING AMERICAN INDIANS, ALASKA NATIVES HAVE SIMILAR
STANDING AND PER06ATIVES.
3. ANCS CREATED CORPORATIONS AND MULTIPLICITY OF TRIBAL
GROUPS IN ALASKA REQUIRES PRIOR IT IZINS FOR PURPOSES OF
PL »3-«38. AFN HAS NO DIFFICULTY WITH AIPRCS RECOMMENDATION
IN THIS REGARD.
4« AFN AGREES WITH AIPRCS ANALYSIS OF T AND H CENTRAL COUNCIL
TRIBAL STATUS.
lYRON I MALLOTT PRESIDENT AFN
950 W fTH AVE SUITE 102
ANCHORAGE ALASKA 99901 PHONE 907-274-3«ll
212
foundation
the alaska native
5T5 "D" Street ■ Anchorage, Alaska 99501 ■ 274-5638
May 11, 1977
Mr. Ernest L. Stevens, Executive Director
American Indian Policy Review Commission
House Office Building, Annex No. 2
2nd Avenue and D Street, S.W., Room 3158
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Stevens:
I have received your tentative final report which arrived
only a few days prior to your deadline for comments . It is
unfortunate that copies were not circulated far in advance
to receive maximum comments from the 70,000 Alaska Natives.
I suppose, however, the same comment about more time has been
your major criticism.
In reviewing the tentative final report, I find the only *
area mentioned as a problem area in Alaska is in "Land Claims."
I must admit, there are substantial problems concerning the
implementation of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
However, the report fails to mention our problems in the area
of education, health, social services, justice, and others.
The implication that our only problem in Alaska is land claims
may result in legislative and funding backlash towards Alaska
Natives. Such a situation would be unfortunate as the unmet
needs in Alaska are substantial.
Early in your administration we suggested that you and
your staff utilize the 2 (c) Report of Federal Programs and
Alaska Natives completed by the Department of the Interior,
two years ago. There is much valid material available in that
report which could have been incorporated into your final report
to the United States Congress. We once again make that suggestion
and urge you to at least outline the 2 (c) recommendations and
conclusions in your final report as a very important addendum.
The Department of the Interior should have piles of copies laying
around somewhere in their offices.
c.c. Alaska Congressional Delegation
Alaska Federation of Natives
213
Chicago, m. 60640
if^^ (312)728-1135
l/EDinECTOn
May 6, 1977
Senator James S. Abourezk,
Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2d and D Streets, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezic:
We substantially agree with the report Captives Within
A Free Society : Federal Policy And The American Indian ,
prepared by your commission. The recommendations are
good and would do much to Improve the status of Indians
if carried out. The emphasis placed on political self-
determination and legal Jurisdiction of the tribes is
proper, since economic and social conditions are dependent
on these factors to a large degree. Inter-tribal self-
determination for American Indian urban communities is
equally important.
The section on "Economic Development" should include
urban Indian development, since it is likely that many
Indians are in the city to stay. Tribal enterprises may
Involve urban as well as reservation Indians. If not
included here, then the economic development of urban
Indians should be discussed in "Off -reservation Indians".
Some of the issues concerning urban Indian development
are discussed in the enclosed "American Indian Business
Association Proposal" (AIBA) . Although urban Indians do
not have the material resources of the reservations, they
do have human resources and access to technical assistance,
also, the capital for business enterprise. Off -reservation
Indians not only deserve the same social services provided
for reservations, but also the same economic development
opportunities. The report should recommend not only
support for urban Indian centers in providing social services
but also support for Indian development organizations such
as the American Indian Business Association. ONAP has
neglected their responsibility to foster Indian urban
economic development. Also, HUD, though funding reservation
housing, has done nothing with Indian contractors to improve
the poor housing conditions of many urban Indians.
Dedicated to the creation and development of Indian owned Business.
214
Resorvations can develop ll^ht Industry and other labor-
intensive businesses. This should be discussed In the
■'Economic Developraent " section. Non-Indian corporations
and the BIA have reco3nized this potential. Unfortunately,
the EIA stresses employment as the only .3031 of reserva-
tion industry, and many of these enterprises are neither
owned nor managed by Indians. Tribal enterprises are
often managed by non-Indians due to lack of skills on the
reservation. The American Indian Business Association
(AIBA) has found a need for basic management training,
not only specialized technical assistance as mentioned
by the comjiussion. The report, rightly, puts a hi^h
priority on business education. This should exist not
only on a professional level, but should be disseminated
as widely as possible, as AIBA is doinr^ through its
mana.-3;ement training workshops and consulting relationships,
Furthermore, it is essential to tribal development that
tribal government positions be paid. Volunteer council
members presently/ do not have the time or energy to
effectively plan and develop business enterprises.
Indians have historically been excluded from, self-
management experience and need technical assistance and
m.ana'^ement training, preferably provided by Indians.
The sections on technical assistance (in Chapter 4) and
business education needed (in Chapter 7) contain 3000
recommendations In response to the situation.
Thank you for the opportunity to make our su-:fcestions
and comments known.
Sincerely,
iv 1 1 1 a r d E . La !'!e r e
EXECUTI\^ DIPuECTOR
End: AIBA P^^po&a-l-
','.^L/rl
215
THE AMERICAN INDIAN BUSINESS ASSOCIATIOri
The Amer'ican Indian Business Association (AIBA) is an
American Indian organization funded the past two years through
the Commerce Department in order to create more Indian-owned
businesses and strengthen existing ones in the region: Illinois,
Wisconsin and Michigan. There are very few Indian busines£;es
in proportion to the size of the Indian population.
Why should Indians enter the business world? First of
all, it benefits the individuals putting their skills to work
for their own pr-oflt. Secondly, Indian business benefits the
American Indian community as a whole. Money spent for goods
and services can stay within the community. As economists
understand, a single dollar multiplies its effect as it cir-
culates from on hand to another within a community. For
example, let's say a dollar passes between an Indian buyer
and an Indian seller: the buyer is satisfied with one dollar's
worth of Indian goods or services and another Indian has the
dollar to spend. That dollar Is now spent again for a dollar's
worth of Indian goods or services and another Indian has the
dollar to spend. Each one has gained goods and services or
another dollar of purchasing power. Thus the same dollar can
benefit many Indians as long as it stays within the community.
Now, the dollar usually benefits Indians once, only until it
enters the white landlord's or merchant's pocket, and it does
so immediately after pay day. Without the existence of Indian
business and the circulation effect, economic progress is
impoosible for the Indian community.
216
The p,ovorr,r.,cut iui;-. £;pent iJiiiiioii;; (;f dc:iar& to h'-.p
1 ud ;a;.;., ijui With li.lLie effect,. The- mcjriey f.oc.s in o:;' ria.'i'J
and out r.ht other. lL;n't it better to teach someone how to
fish thian to' Rive them fish? The Indian comniunity need-, to
make :r.oney and indian (.;ntei'prise , not juot eniploynent, i.. the
an^/.-t r.> i'lie budget of the American Zndiari fiasi.'.esLi Ai,.;o'- :■.•.".. l-y
(A":BA) r-..-prf:;ents much iesS'.than 1% of all the frovernrr.ent TiO'\"y
spent on Indian procrams in the region, even though it i;. th-i
mort. efficient way to help Indians. It iv not c-pendirij-;, but
i nvr;.;l rr on t in Indian deve^iopment .
AlilA offers n:atiy services to it:.; clients aiid the iv.dih:.
eo.'umu- 1 L> . :TO;-.p'-ctive business people are helped m dov<:-
C'pi'ij', a bL.:jL->eso p^lari, getting loans, choosirig a site, se' ■..-.>;
up re.-ord keepir:/'. systems, and marketing. Existing Indian
bu:~ifi''.;s'. :. are helped to expand, procure more sales and "rv-^ar
and iniprov.: thcjr organi zation. AIBA offers managem<-nt training
v.ork:-hops .-Mid teclmlcal assistance on specific problem:-. "•.•■
Ali^A t tai'i' :-,'M>p:-. abreast of current 0[.>portuni ti^'s and rc.-^-i.: .-.ci.
ThfV'c ar-'- :.uv,' more opportunities than there are Indian €:;ti-e-
pencur.. to pursue them. AIBA encourages Indians to cr.zcr 'ho
business world. It acts as a catadyst for Indian eccnomi-
development in tiie '"egion.
217
Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc.
432 Park Avenue South
New York, N. Y. 10016
Alfonso Ortiz. Ph.D., Prtiideni
Benjamin C. O'Sullivan. Vn« Prtsidint
Mrs. Henry S. Forbes. Secretly
E. Tinsley Ray. Trtoimret
William Byler. Extemtiwt Director
Arthur Lanrui. Jr.. Richard Schifter. Ctntral C
April 20, 1977
The Honorable James Abourezk
American Indian Policy Revietw commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex Ne. 2
2d and D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 205l5
Dear Senator Aboiirezk:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the "tentative" final
report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission.
We would like to restrict our comments to two matters only: child
placement and water rights.
I. Child placement , (pp. 8-10 -- 8-12), Apparently some of the
copy has been inadvertently omitted from this section, as two of the
pages end in mid-sentence. Wfe vtrge that the Commission's final report
adopt in their entirety the recommendations regarding child placement
made by Task Force Four on pages 87-88 of their report.
II. Water rights , (pp. 7-37 ~ 7-it2). This section is disappointing.
A vague recommendation is made that Congress "investigate" litigation in
several areas. No mention is made of the concept of congressional settle-
ment of Indian water rights.
As tribes increasingly seek to assert their water rights and develop
their resources they come into conflict witii competing non-Indian interests.
At present the parties rely almost exclusively on the courts for resolution
rather than on negotiation. The decision of the court in turn may resiilt
in serious social unrest, as evidenced by the recent "Boldt" decision
upholding Indian fishing rights in the Northwest. In many instances a
negotiated congressional settlement would be in the best interests of all
parties. We suggest that the AIPRC indicate its support for conflict
resolution through legislative settlement when a tribe expresses its
willingness to accept this alternative to litigation. (S.905, the Central
Arizona IndianTribal Water Rights Settlement Act of 1977, which was
introduced by Senator Kennedy on March U, 1977 at the tribes' request.
218
Honorable James Abourezk April 20, 1977
may serve as a model of such congressional settlements.)
In a pre-election statement. President Carter indicated his support
for the concept of such congressional settlements: "Indians have a historiCj
legal, and moral right to a fair share of available water resources.
The ultimate resolution of conflicts concerning these rights, and the
rights of others in the Southwest, will almost certainly be decided
by the courts. In disputes concerning water rights, all sides must
be assured full and competent legal representation. Legislation
however may be necessary to speed the resolution of these conflicts,
as an altemativB to protracted litigation." ( Indian Affairs No. 92)
Vfe hope these comments will be of value to you, and we look forward
to seeing the final report.
Sincerely,
Steven Unger
Editor
SU:gm
Enc.
219
Vfe recognize that you may not be able to thoroughly read and evaluate all parts
of this Report vdthin the tinie allowed for contient. However, in order to
include your ccnrients in our Final Fteport, this questionnaire must be ccnpleted
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than April 16, 1977.
Our Final Report must be ccnpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Ccnmission approval.
bP\M E St^d Zejune., Exzcattvz V-Uizctoi ADDRES S 4025 No/Uh 2nd StAzzt
TRIBE/ORGANIZATION PhotYiix Indian CzntoA, IMC. VhotnAX, AZ. &S012
A. PLEASE CIRCLE ONE TO INDICATE YOUR IDENTriY AS:
Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body ( Individual Indian )
Member of Congress Organizational Governing Board
State Official Private Citizen
PLEASE EVT^LUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKING THE BLANK WHICH MOST NEARLY
REPRESENTS YOUR OPINIOSI.
Excellent
The
report as a whole is
XX
I.
History
Legal Concepts
Conditions
Federal-Indian Relations
II.
III.
IV.
XX
V.
Tribal Government
VI.
Federal Administration
XX
VII.
Economic Development
VIII.
Social Services
Off- Reservation
IX.
XX
X.
Terminated Indians
Non-Recognized Indians
XI.
XII.
Special Problem Areas
General
xiir.
220
HAVING RERD THE RBCOMMENDATig^S AT THE END OF EACH SECTION, PLEASE ANSWER
THE FOLDJWING QUESTIONS .
1) Which reconmendations should be given priority status? Why?
Rz.commtndcution 111. A.Cj$ the TzdeAaJL-lndAjxri Tfiuit ReZcutiom, -dzcjUjon, paqu
4-14 & /5, Rzcomimnddtion 1. - pccgz 131, of, tko. Ttd^AcUL AdmlnA^tAcution
Se.ctLon, O^i-fie^M-vcution Indian Section fi2.comme.ndcutioni lolxitzd to Unban
IndAjxn CenteAi. Thzi^ KzcomimndatA.oni, ofiz boiic to thz. doIAvaALj o^ ieAviczi
to Indian pwplz iindoA thz FedeAol- Indian fizLation^hlp.
2) Are there recortmendations vd.th which you disagree? Why?
3) Are there reconmendations you would like to have added?
Oii-nuQAvatlon Szctlon: {^undi ihouZd be alZocajtzd {^oi thz dzveI.opme.nt oj
uAban Indian centeA jaalUXleA and legUlatlon znacted Ij neceMaAtj to
alZoM Indian CenteA^ to dlnzcXtij receive iaah ^ands .
4) Do you feel the content of the report provides an accurate, useful
picture of the situation?
5) Do you have any additional cements?
I would tike to commend the Commliiilon and ita^ ion thein eHonXi in
developing till:, exceZient nepont.
SPACE IS PROVIDED ON THE FOUjOWING PAGES FOR YOUR SPECIFIC RECCMMENDATTONS .
221
Benton Pafate Reseviaation
U ta Utu Gcoafta Pafate TRi'be
lOe Soatta Main StReet, Roora # 7"
P. O- Bojt 1525
Bisbop, CalipoRnia 5>5514
(Z14) 8Z5-7448
29 March 1977
Imerlcan Indian Policy ReTlew Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building, Annex Ho .2
2D and D Streets, S.V.
Washington, D. C.
Dear Slp(s):
Benton Palnte Reserratlen's Resolmtlon go, 77-05
Enclosed herewith please find our above captioned
resolution regarding the establishment of the
American Indian Development Authority*
Ve sincerely hope this will be a help!
Sincerely,
xril^^^\ ^'^7>^S2>^
Pattl S. Yermuth
Staff Secretary
pew
encl<
222
Benton Paiute Reservation
Resolution No. 77-05
Subject: To support the American Indian Development Authority
(AIDA) as recommended tiy the American Indian Policy
Review Commission.
Whereas: The U tu Utu Swaitu Paiute Tribal Council recognizes
the need to establish economic development on the
Benton Paiute Reservation; and
Whereas: The economic development of the Benton Paiute
Reservation will be dependent upon capital development
grants and management and technical assistance.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the U tu Utu Gwaitu Paiute
Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation supports the establishment
of the American Indian Development Authority.
CERTIFICATION
We, the undersigned, as the duly elected Tribal Council members
of the Benton Paiute Reservation, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was adopted at a. ^Ai^itA ^ '^l^ O0 t4A4 ^C
meeting, duly called and convened on 2v9 /Tifh^fJt /^X^ ,
1977, at which a quorum was present, by a vote of \Z
for, against, and ^ abstaining, and tint this
resolution has not been rescinded or amended in any way.
TRIBAL COUNCIL:
Jseph C. Saulque, Triba^^hairman
Mike E. Keller, Tribal Vice-Chairman
\jOJbieAf^
Bertha Willis, Member
Gerald Lewis, Member
DATE: ZS^ynOAPAf /977
yiQApp/97?
ATTEST : 'MTTj / L / Uji/sA//iuitj^
223
We recognize that you may not be able to thoroughly read and
evaluate all parts of this Report within the time allowed for
comment. However, in order to include your comments in
our final report, this questionnaire must be completed and
returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than
Aprii 16, 1977. Our Final Report must be completed by
May 15, 1977 for final Commission approval.
NAME Bern ice Hedrick ADDRESS Box 82A. Berry Creek. CA
95916
TRIBE/ ORGANIZATION Berry Creek Tribal Council - Maidu
A. PLEASE CIRCLE ONE TO INDICATE YOUR IDENTITY AS:
'' Tribal Chairma n) Tribal Governing Body Individual Indian
Member of Congress Organizational Governing Board
State Official Private Citizen
B. PLEASE EVALUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKING THE BLANK WHICH
MOST NEARLY REPRESENTS YOUR OPINION .
Excellent Good Poor
The report as a whole is
I. History
II. Legal Concepts
in. Conditions
IV. Federal-Indian Relations
V. Tribal Government
VI. Federal Administration
VI. Economic Development
VII. Social Services
IX. Off- Reservation ^
*-//[/ ai-i-L^ -<^'-'^y^ ^,^2.c^ ^4.^^^ ^^-- ^,'^^,>^--c<-^yiJ^^
93-440 O - 78 - 16
224
X. Terminated Indians ^ < ^.
XI. Non- Recognized Indians
XII. Special Problem Areas
XIII. General „^7„./^jv / . .-^ ,^: ;r-r -L-^^-ri,
C. HAVING READ THE RECOMMENDATIO N S AT THE END OF EACH SECTION .
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
1) Which recommendations should be given priority status ? Why"? ^£^^^^^^^^^^ '
/yV-r^^^y- , ^y^ /':fyci^-v? . /^■i_-/ ,>.Jj: y-.'^.i^^/ ,^^,.- /^>6^^x V 7^
2) Are there recommendations with which you disagree? Why? ^^\j^ -
.■irV< ^,r^-^. ■?rv^v'--^v .^^^yfcfe;, ^ ^.i^^^.-L^r-f' -XAaj^ y.v^f.
3) Are there recommendations you would like to have added? // >^^ t^
.i^cAtH''', .^V ^/.-s t'yii/,^r/fr-»^ d-^ti!^ ,/ / g^ ,
-^3-
'4) Do you feel the content of the report provides an accurate, useful picture
of the situation? X^^,^,-^. ,^ ., v^^ ^r/.^^^^ r.y? .,r /^K^ y
225
5) Do you have any additional comments? C^Ay^i i j^^ '/'J-^',,^. -^Ir/^/
F. SPACE IS PROVIDED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR YOUR SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAPTER (3 ) PAGE (J-^4 PARAGRAPH (^'-tTTi)
In the section beginning with the words "
, " it is suggested that the
following addition, deletion or change in wording may be made, or the following
concept expressed differently: \J(_ -^^ r-rrYA-^^/ ^u^ :K, ^y x ^/w,<lSL
226
^X L/x^/^i^^.;.^'.^^'^ 7.-^-'-^
-^ ^-i^-^ ^Tk^
^^^c^t _-=/^ r-^7^ ^,;f/d.^^c. a^i^-'t^i^---^-^^ .jU-^i^-'"'-'-^^^ ^'-T^''--''^
■-'^/■<.<W- 6^z^-r^'
•x/'vcy^ (-'i.L- d-cc.L-tui<_ A^iL-Cr<^y<, <-^-«*o^ /<:<!--: -/5>t'<-«-^^V^/
T- -- V
t^f-iU:/, .■^<~^ V^-^ —^/i^ ~^'i>c^^i--r=iy4-' yiiC^yr^ *->y .. ^ /<-^ ^-: c 44'
•7^:
^-r/'
-^-r'/
^cJ.^,., J?'-^.'^
227
We recognize that you may not be able to thoroughly read and evaluate all parts
of this Report within the tijie allowed for ocnment. Hcwever, in order to
include your catments in our Final Report, this questionnaire must be cciipleted
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than April 16, 1977.
Our Final Report must be corpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Catitdssion approval.
NftME Cf-Pf'-^ <?//«
Cfi
TRIBE/ORGANIZATION ^ f.'i ^'^I'-^/rr t'^ t\ L t-T ^■(■''^f
A. PLEASE CIRCLE ONE TO INDiCAT^ YDUR" JoPnTTY AS :
Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body Individual Indian
Member of Congress Organizational Governing Board
State Official , ^ivate Citizen
B. PLEASE EVALUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKING THE BLANK WHICH MOST NEARLY
REPI
The
RESENTS YOUR OPDJICN.
report as a whole is
History
Legal Concepts
Conditions
Federal-Indian Relations
Tribal Government
Federal Administration
Eoonotdc DevelopiTEnt
Excellent
Good
Poor
I.
-T-
II.
III.
^ .
IV.
/
V.
VI.
VII.
X
VIII.
Social Services
Off-Reservation
^
EC.
A
X.
Terminated Indians
Non-Recognized Indians
Special Problem Areas
General
XI.
XII.
» /
XIII.
/
A
228
C. HAVING HERD THE RECOWdEKDftTIONS AT THE END OF EftCH SEXTTICW, PLEASE ANSWER
TOE FOLIXWING QUESTIOB .
1) Which recatinendations should be given priority status? Why?
f L.l%C .•/-. --i ,.r ntm'i.^'/' . ,, ^U\. r- /-'-t: :t^if^t^
i-.r 1 /-'''- ' '/v ■■
,-. ruei,l
■■ I'-ifi^'i^
1
,,
s . /■ ■ r
- /. .'V--
.■J~/ '-''.'■■ -•
^]/]ri:
,-,f. r. . 1
, / -7 /-'/
f: '-'.
., /.
■ /'
2) Are there reccmnendations with which you disagree? Why?
3) Are there reccranendations you woiiLd like to have added? ■'.' "'t-L I '' ■ c
n ■ ' ' ■-■■
''■ 1 ~
''(/ :/■'■:
1. •.'- :>: '-I' r
;■ -'. '->- .
. / < ;'. A
..• ;-,-A
/•',, / /
, ,U ^ y •
' : /■ ,
/ '■/ 1. ' ■'■
n t>^ ■■ r' ■ ;
/ /■// -t
.r./ ..■
; .■) ■ -
,/:i
'■: 1 1 ul<,i ./. .
,A,v^
I ^/t ,ri./i- ,.-.■
;. 'I /•■
4) Do you feel the content of the report provides an accurate, useful
picture of the situation? '"''^ -
5) Do you have any additional ccrroents? -. vf /" ^'V ' in'^
F. SPACE IS PROVIDED CN THE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR YOUR SPECIFIC RBCCMMENDATIONS.
229
TRIBE/ORGANIZATICN
Chapter ( ) Page ( ) Paragraph ( )
In the section beginning with the
," it is suggested that the follcwing addition.
deletion or change in wording be madey or the follcwing concept expiressed
di f f erently :
fLlK<. :^'^t i'jh.r u^'rtu /tf^f/i'/X^ -j-uii'.rf^'y'/lLu cfUt/iTlY ^^■'-J'J'r:. j^ ^y/ir^ te
230
American Indian Policy Review Commission
: united states
2d AM) D Stuuti. SW.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20SH
PHONE: 202-225-1 2(4
May 4, 1977
Senator James Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S. W.
Washington, D, C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing for consideration by the American Indian
Policy Review Commission at its meetings of May 12 and
13, 1977, a provision which was discussed at previous
meetings of the Commission, but never stated in specific
language. I recommend inclusion of the following:
After the first paragraph on page 12-14 of the Com-
mission's tentative final report add the following:
Although their problems, and consequently their needs,
do not differ markedly from those of their brothers
in the lower 48, the vast size and severe climate of
Alaska, coupled with wide dispersion of the Alaska
Natives and limited transportation facilities, render
it considerably more difficult and costly to meet the
needs of the Alaska Natives than to meet the same
needs of Native Americans elsewhere. Regardless how
often articulated, the fact that it costs a great deal
more to do almost everything in Alaska than any other
place in the Nation, and that dollars don't go nearly
as far in Alaska, are not really understood by many
people .
If it costs $25 thousand to provide a decent modest
house in South Dakota for an Indian family of four,
the cost of providing a comparable house in interior
Alaska for a Native family of the same size might well
be $80 thousand. The real magnitude of the difference
between the costs of doing things and providing services
in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States is seldom
accomodated, even in programs where it is ostensibly
231
Senator Abourezk
May 4, 1977
Page 2
taken into account. And general standards, for example,
of feasibility that must be met to qualify for the
benefits of many programs are simply impossible to meet
in Alaska.
Until the real magnitude of the difference in costs
between doing things in Alaska and elsewhere is recognized
and accomodated by those in Congress and the executive
branch responsible for the design and funding of programs
for Native people, the Natives of Alaska, when not com-
pletely foreclosed, are not going to receive benefits
from such programs comparable to those received by other
Native Americans.
After the first paragraph on page 12-14, strike the first
two words "But they" and substitute therefore the words "The
Alaska Natives. "
Sincerely yours.
Borbridge,
Commissioner
232
American Indian Policy Review Commission
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
House Office Buildmq Annex I4o. 2
Zo/WDDSnerra. SW.
WASHINGTON. D.C 205IS
PHONE: 202^Z2S-I2<4
May 4, 1977
Senator James Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The enclosure contains my comments regarding the Native
American Rights Fund (NARF) critique of the American
Indian Policy Review Commission report on Alaska. The
critique was the subject of a telephone conversation on
May 2, 1977, at which time the gist of the enclosed
document was conveyed .
I appreciate the opportunity provided to comment on the
issues raised by the Native American Rights Fund in re-
gard to the Alaska section of the Final Report.
Sincerely yours.
John Borbridge, Jr,
Commissioner ^**
Attachment
233
American Indian Policy Review Commission
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
The following constitute my comments relative to the statements
regarding Alaska contained in the document prepared by the Native
American Rights Fund (NARF) .
I
Alaska Natives
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
NARF takes the position that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) adversely affected the sovereign powers residing in the
Alaska Native Communities.
The Commission has concluded that historically the relationship
between the Alaska Native Tribes and the United States is the same
as that between the Indian Tribes of the lower 48 and the United
States; that historically the Alaska Native Tribes possessed the same
powers of sovereignty as are possessed by the Indian Tribes of the
lower 48; and that the Settlement Act did not essentially alter the
234
status of the traditional Alaska Native Tribes or their relationship to
the United States or diminish their powers. Most of the comments
made by NARF in opposition to this conclusion are ultimately irrelevant
and betray a profound lack of understanding of the Alaska Native
history and circumstances.
Although the Settlement Act provided for the creation of new entities
to accomplish its purposes , it largely left the traditional native enti-
ties alone , neither adding to nor detracting from whatever rights ,
powers , privileges and immunities they possessed before its
enactment. While it is true that the act expressed a policy against
creating any new racially defined "enclaves" or institutions or trustee-
ships, it did not, except in a handful of cases, undertake to change
any existing institutions or relationships . Except in the case of
those few native groups for whom reservations had been created, as
far as the traditional native tribes are concerned, the Settlement Act
changed nothing.
The Commission recognized, because the traditional Alaska Native
Tribes, by and large, were not involved with reservations, that
they had no occasion to exercise some of the powers of sovereignty
exercised by other Indian Tribes over defined territories (Indian
235
reservations). Alaska Natives insist, however, that other powers
traditionally exercised by tribes that were not powers exclusively
associated with or derived from land ownership, were among "residual"
tribal sovereignty powers appertaining to their status . It is nonsense
to suggest that the basic relationship existing between the Tlingit
and Haida Tribes, for example, and the United States was altered
because the Settlement Act, for example, provided for state taxation of
native lands . The simple fact is , with few exceptions , that the tradi-
tional Alaska Native Tribes had no land tax exemptions to be affected
by the Settlement Act. And, what the revocation of the applicability
of the Indian Allotment Act has to do with the status of the traditional
Alaska Native Tribes and their relationship to the United States , is
beyond me.
Indian Self Determination Act
NARF takes the position that the Indian Self Determination Act is
better administered by small native entities rather than large ones.
The Commission has tentatively concluded as a matter of policy that
for the purposes of receiving benefits under the Indian Self-Deter-
mination Act larger entities should generally be given preference over
smaller ones and tribal type entities should generally be given prefer-
ence over other types of entities .
236
NARF's objections to these policy determinations are not representa-
tive largely of the Native feeling in Alaska. NARF reflects the role
usually assumed in Alaska by "outside" bureaucrats who decide that
they know what is best — thus obviating the necessity of eliciting
comment directly from the people. As it is a matter of policy, it is
for the Commission, guided by responsible representatives of the
Alaska Natives, and not for others who are unaffected by applicable
policy, to decide such a basic question. While the appeal for village
autonomy, such as suggested by NARF, has a nice democratic ring,
the plain facts are that the larger the entity, the better it is able to
cope with a swollen bureaucracy and to insure benefits are received
where needed as opposed to placing authority in small, unsophisticated
entities scattered through Alaska which are subjected to being divided
and conquered by the bureaucracy . The irony derived from the
current administration of the Indian Self Determination Act is that the
B.I. A. has used that legislation to erode tribal governing status in
Alaska - a result neither desired nor contemplated by the Act.
Tlingit and Haida Central Council
NARF contends that Congress has not recognized the Central Council
as the general and supreme governing body of the Tlingit and Haida
Tribes .
237
This contention, on the whole, simply ignores the legislative history of
the relevant acts of Congress regarding the Tlingit and Haida Central
Council, particularly those of August 19, 1965 and July 13, 1970.
While it is true that the Act of August 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 543), which
provided for the organization of the Central Council under rules of
election approved by the Secretary of the Interior, stipulates that
this body "shall be the official Central Council of the Tlingit and
Haida Indians for purposes of this Act," it is not true that the
authority of the Council was intended by either the Congress or the
Department of the Interior to be limited to matters related to the
Tlingit and Haida claims against the United States.
Nor is it true that the status of the Central Council as the general
governing body of the Tlingit and Haida Tribes rests solely on the
1965 Act, although, in light of its legislative history, that act would
suffice to establish it as such.
Two subsequent acts of Congress, together with their legislative
histories, establish the status of the Central Council beyond any
legitimate doubt. These are the Act of July 13, 1970 (84 Stat. 431),
providing for the disposition of the Tlingit and Haida judgment funds ,
and the Act of December 18, 1971 (85 Stat. 688), providing for over-
all settlement of the Alaska Native Land Claims.
238
Three times in the last six years Congress has been called upon to
address issues involving the organization for purposes of self-
government of the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Southeast Alaska.
In 1965, it was advised by the Department of the Interior of the need
to provide for the organization and recognition of a tribal governing
body, truly representative of these Indians, with which the Department
could deal, not just in connection with matters relating to their claims
against the Government, but generally.
Congress responded by passing the 1965 Act, which it had been in-
formed by the Department would accomplish this purpose. The reports
of the Interior Committees which underlie that act show beyond cavil
that this is what Congress understood and intended to be its effect.
Thereafter, the Central Council was organized in accordance with the
requirements of the 1965 Act under rules of election and a constitution
which expressly established it as the general governing body of the
Tlingit and Haida Indians.
These documents and the operations of the Central Council since its
organization have subsequently been laid before and considered by
239
Congress in connection with the enactment of the Tlingit and Haida
judgment fund distribution act of 1970, and the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of 1971.
In their reports accompanying the bills that became the 1970 act,
the Interior Committees of both houses of Congress unequivocally
stated their understandings that the Central Council organized under
the 1965 act is "the governing body of the Tlingit and Haida Indians . "
And, in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Congress
assigned the implementive and organizational responsibilities for the
Natives of Southeast Alaska exclusively to the Central Council.
In the light of these acts of Congress , and of their legislative *
histories , I submit that no conclusion is sustainable other than that
the Central Council is the general governing body of the Tlingit and
Haida Indians of Southeast Alaska.
in Borbridc
Commissioner
93-440 O - 78 -
240
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9
Stowninq, ^Montana 5g417
April 21, 1977
Americcui Indicui Policy Review Conimission
House Office Building Annex #2
2nd and D. Streets, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Sirs:
Please find enclosed a copy of an A.I.P.R.C. Workshop report. The report is
the product of a two day workshop as hosted by the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy
Board. Contained within are A.I.P.R.C. "Tentative Final Report" chapter
presentations and recommendations as generated by workshop participants.
The workshop participants hereby respectfully submit their recommendations
and input for this historic study.
Sincerely yours.
Tom Thompson
A.I.P.R.C. Workshop Recorder
T. Pablo
E. Barlow
R. Blakeslee
241
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES &. RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM AN A. I. P. R. C. WORKSHOP
AS SPONSORED BY
THE MONTANA INTER-TRIBAL POLICY BOARD
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
APRIL 14-15, 1977
242
Table of Contents
r. Introduction pp. 1-3
II. A.I.P.R.C. "Tentative Final Report"
Chapter presentations/recommendations pp. 3-16
III. Conclusion pp. 16
APPENDIX A - M0NTA:M INTER-TRIBAL POLICY BOARD MEMORANDUM
APPENDIX 3 - A.I.P.R.C. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
APPENDIX C - AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COflMISSION
P.L. 93-580
APPENDIX D. - LETTERS
243
INTRODUCTION
On April 14-15, 1977, the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board sponsored a
workshop relative to the American Indian Policy Review Conunission. The primary
objective of the workshop was to generate comments for submission to the A.I.R.P.C.
per its April 23, 1977 deadline. The seven Montana Indian reservations and the
landless were to report on and make recommendations regarding two (2) of the
chapters contained in the A.I.P.R.C. "Tentative Final Report." (For further
information, see Appendix A.)
Thursday, April 14, 1977
Mr. Tom Pablo, Chairman, M.I.T.P.B., called the meeting to order and introduced
the workshop participants (see Appendix B) . It was noted that several tribes were
not in attendance and that those tribal council representatives present were not
prepared to follow the original format of the workshop. After a brief discussion,
Mr. Pablo introduced Earl Barlow, A.I.P.R.C. Task Force #5 member.
Mr. Barlow gave an overview of the history and purpose of the /American Indian
Policy Review Commission, P.L. 93-580, and stated that the Commission report would
probably be a key factor for several years in shaping governmental policies and
programs relative to Alaskan Natives and American Indians. (For further information,
see Appendix C. )
Mr. Barlow then turned the meeting over to Mr. Dwight Billedeaux, workshop
moderator. Mr. Billedeaux in turn introduced Tom Thompson, workshop recorder. Mr.
Billedeaux reaffirmed the fact that several tribal representatives were not in
attendance and that in general, the workshop participants were not prepared to follow
the original format of the workshop. Mr. Billedeaux then asked for suggestions.
After a brie discussion, it was the consensus of the participants that the intent
of the workshop was extremely vital and of much importance to all Indian people.
The participants agreed to divide the A.I.P.R.C. "Tentative Final Report" chapters
and to report and make recommendations on the following day (April 15, 1977.)
I
244
The following represents the revised list of presenters:
Chapter 1 - "History of United States — Indian Relations" - Dwight Dilledeaux
Chapter 2 - "Legal Concepts in Indian Law" - Rona Blakeslee
Chapter 3 - "Contemporary Conditions of Indians" - Unassigned (Participants felt
that the report/recommendations would be obvious.)
Chapter 4 - "Indian Trust Relations" - Ray Dupuis
Chapter 5 - "Tribal Government" - Roland Kennerly
Chapter 6 - "Federal Administration" - Tom Whitford/Ivan Raining Bird
Chapter 7 - "Economic Development" - Vicky Desonia
Chapter 8 - "Social Services" - Ron Sullivan
Chapter 9 - "Off-Reservation Indians" - Pat Morris
Chapter 10 - "Terminated Tribes" - Karen Fenton
Chapter 11 - "Unrecognized Indians" - Karen Fenton
Chapter 12 - "Special Circumstances — Alaska — Oklahoma — California" - Unassigned
(Participatns felt any recommendations would be inappropriate in
that Indian/Alaska Natives from the three states affected should be
the respondents.)
Chapter 13 - "Miscellaneous" - Earl Barlow
Chapter 14 - "Dissent by Congressman Lloyd Meeds" - Earl Barlow
Mr. Billedeaux urged the participants who were not responsible for chapter
presentations to independently read one or more so that all participants could
participate in the second day of the workshop. Mr. Billedeaux urged all presenters
to prepare notes and to submit the same to Mr. Thompson. The workshop/M. I.T.P.B.
meeting was recessed at 12:00 Noon on April 14, 1977, until 9:00 a.m. April 15, 1977.
NOTE : (Mr. Henry Old Coyote gave a brief presentation to the participamts
and informed them that he, along with two other Montana Indians, A. Parker and
E. Ducheneaux, were recently appointed to the U. S. Senate Select Committee on
Indian Affairs. Five (5) Senators are currently working/investigating matters
pertaining to American Indians. Mr. Old Coyote stated that three Indian staffers
were chosen from Montana since it (Montana) was the "hot spot" in matters such
245
as jurisdiction, sovereignity, etc.)
Friday, April 15, 1977
Mr. Tom Pablo, Chairman, M.I.T.P.B., called the meeting to order and promptly
asked the workshop moderator, Mr. Billedeaux, to preside. Mr. Billedeaux then aiiked
each presenter to prepare for hisAier presentations. The following represents the
"essence" of each presentations. I^ should he noted that the recommendations
accompanying each presentation do not reflect the thinking and/or priorities
of all members of the M. I.T.P.B. , nor do they reflect the priorities of all of
Montana' s Indian people , but rather are the thoughts and priorities of the
workshop participants either individually or collectively .
Chapter 1 - "History of United States — Indian Relations" - Dwight Billedeaux
Comment :
"The first chapter is broken into throe parts: The Formative Years,
The Strategy of Assimilation, and the Right to Choose. It is entitled
" Captive Within A Free Society , Fede ral Policy and The^ Ameri can Indian . "
It prepares or sets the stage for the American Indian Policy Review
Commission's study. It presents the historical facts by defining the
issues, giving examples and causes and effects. It is the basis that
will set the discussion, recommendations and resolutions for this meeting.
The first section sets Indian policy through 1871 and discusses the
following: Colonial period as it parallels that same Indian period.
Treaty making. War of Independence and the punishment of the Indian
tribes that allied with the British. The Conquest Theory, Secretary
of Way, Henry Knox's declaration that tribes were to be treated as
foreign nations. Also discussed was President Thomas Jefferson's
treatment of the Indians (neglect, take, steal, bribe, and ignore)
so called "civilization" of Indians. His gradual process of civiliza-
tion failed. The Indian Removal Act - 1830, Intercourse Act - 1802,
Cherokee Nation v Georgiz - 1831, Worchester v Georgia - 1832 — all
landmark decisions ignored by Jefferson. Removal treaties, effect of
the railroad on Indians, Mexican Session 1848, and gold discovery 1949,
further open Indians to exploitation. Department of Interior formed
X849, withholding of annuities, were also afforded much discussion.
The second part discusses policy development from 1871 to 1920. It
discusses the beginning of Indian education. Ex Parte, Crow Dog decision
1885, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, Great Land Conspiracy,
General Allotment Act or the Dawes Act, Burke Act issues "certificates
of Competency."
The third part is "A Policy of the Future" which we are attempting to
analyze.
246
In general, the chapter provided an excellent overview of U. S. policies
relating to American Indians."
Recommendations :
Mr. Billedeaux stated that since the first cliapter is purely informational,
that recommendations would be inappropriate.
"Legal Concepts in Indian Law" - Rena Blakeslee
Comment :
"As stated in the opening paragraph of this chapter: This Commission's
charter from Congress, reflecting two hundred years of legislative and
executive action, aptly describes the relationship between the United
States and American Indian tribes as "unique" and "special'.' Such words
have repeatedly been emphasized by the United States Supreme Court in
opinions stretching across almost one and one-half centuries. The
unequivocal message from all three brances of our federal government is
that Indian law and policy is a field unto itself.
It is almost always a mistake to seek answers to Indian legal issues
by making analogies to seemingly similar fields. General notions of
civil rights law and public land law, for example, simply fail to resolve
many questions relating to American Indian tribes and individuals. This
extraordinary body of law and policy holds its own answers which are often
wholly unexpected to those unfamiliar with it.
There were no summaries or recommendation in this chapter. Chapter 2
did, however, cover tribal sovereignty, trust relationships. Congress'
broad constitutional authority over Indian affairs, and the question:
'Who is an Indian?' Indian tribes are governments. Because of their
sovereignty, they inherently possess all powers held by a government.
No tribes exercise the full range of their powers but there is a definite
thrust of tribal policy for a greater use of those powers.
The United States has a special and unique duty toward American Indians.
This duty has always been recognized by the courts and has been charac-
terized as a trust responsibility. Tlie United States has the obligation
to provide services and other appropriate action necessary to protect
tribal self-government. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the primary agent
of Congress, is to provide administration of trust responsibility, and
it has been proven that the B.I. A. has used the trust doctrine as a
means to develop a heavy-handed control over the day-to-day affairs
of Indian individuals and tribes."
Recommendations :
"I made no recommendations on the Plenary Power of Congress on tribal
governments but I have made a few on the others:
1. All tribes should be accorded full jurisdiction over land, people,
etc., including non- Indians;
2. State and Federal courts should be compelled to recognize tribal
247
law and judgments of tribal courts;
3. Political science texts should state, recognize, and teach tribal
governments ;
4. Protection should be vested in the tribal courts to enforce tribal
laws ;
5. A separate Department of Indian Affairs should be created and the
Indians should be able to assist in the planning;
6. B.I. A. funds should go directly to the tribes;
7. There is a need for immediate attention being given to Indian claims
against the government;
8. A policy is needed to ensure trust protection and enhancement;
9. Financial aid and legal remedies must be available/provided against
Federal violations of trust protection;
10. If Federal and state governments appropriate funds to determine
jurisdiction matters, the same amount of money should be set
aside for tribal governments to use;
11. There is a need for tribe
"who is an Indian. " A un
to determine a reliable definition of
il definition would be preferred."
- "Contemporary Conditions of Indians" - Unassigned
As indicated earlier, the participants felt this chapter should be
unassigned since comments and recommendations would be obvious to
most Indian people.
- "Indian Trust Relationships" - Ray Dupuis
Comment:
"Federal-Indian trust relationship has had a history of being ambiguous.
Actually, the trust responsibility by the Federal Government to tlie
Indian has always been present. It is the interpretation of the respon-
sibilities whore weaknesses are found. And those interpretations have
resulted in varied and inconsistent policies.
Throughout the history of the trust relationship between the Federal
Government and . the Indian, there has been a conflict of interest within
the Department of Justice and the Department of Interior when legal
services were required to protect, enhance, or enforce the Indians
rights. The conflict of interest arose when other Federal Government
agencies, i.e. Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau
of Fish and Wildlife, and the Corps of Engineers, became involved in
making policy decisions which resulted as a direct conflict between the
responsibilities to the general public and the responsibilities to the
Indian people. Generally, it was the Indian who suffered.
The Indians" inherent right to sovereignty must be protected, enforced
248
and enhanced to eliminate any further deletion of the Indians' .sovereign
right to self-government."
Recommendation :
1. "There has been an eroding of the trust responsibility re] at :ion.';hip
which exists between the Federal Government and the Indian )icople.
This erosion has occurred through varied and inconsistent policies.
(Which have been a direct result of interpretations of where the
trust responsibility begins or ends.) Halting the erosion is a
mandate and positive policy must be adopted to insure protecti^jn,
enforcement and enhancement of the trust responsibility towards the
Indians by the Federal Government;
2. There is a need for legal representation for Indians. This would
help eliminate the conflict of interest issues (State and Federal) ;
3. The Congress should establish an Office of Trust Rights Protection
whose duties could include but not be limited to:
Inventorying Indian trust property;
Assist in management of that property;
Advise Indian/tribes in legal matters;
all litigation and administrative
Represent Indians/tribes
proceedings;
Establish field off)
Indians/ tribes ;
levels for
3y access by the
4. The Congress should initiate a study to determine how Public Law 2£
has affected the reservations within states who are considered 280
states;
5. There is a need for a study on Federal-Indian trust responsibility
relationships to determine if direct tribal representation is
desirable at the Congressional level;
6. There is a need for a closer working relationship between tribes
and the Office of Management and Budget;
7. Finally, there is a definite need for follow-up by a committee to
monitor the status of A.I.P.R.C. recommendations and to determine
if any have influenced or have been adopted by the Congress."
"Tribal Government"
Comment:
Roland Kennerly
"As stated in the chapter overview: 'Tribal government today is at a
crossroads of history. Simply put, the question is whether tribes are
going to be permanent, on-going political institutions exercising the
basic powers of local government or whether they are to be transient
249
bodies reloqatod to more "service dolivory vehicles" for Federal
assistance programs; more "I'ederal instrumentalities" for tlio control
of the social behavior of their own tribal membership pending their
ultimate assimilation into the dominant society which surrounds them.
This is the fundamental question for the future of Indian tribes and
the fundamental question which the Congress must resolve in the fnrmula-
tion of the future course of I'ederal- Indian policy.'
In addition, Indian people are concerned about the role of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs in regard to the implementation of the U. S. trust
responsibility to Indian people. Moreover, Indian people have registered
numerous allegations and have charged the B.I. A. with:
1. Directly interfering in tribal elections.
2. Usurping one of the most basic powers of self-government — the
right to determine membership, by conditioning BIA funding on BIA-
determined membership qualifications.
3. Playing off one tribe against another in competition for funding.
4. Conditioning BIA funding or delivery of services on the level of
of cooperation between tribal members and agency or area office
employees.
5. Failing to respond to tribal requests for legal assistance.
6. Failing to respond to tribal requests for financial assistance.
7. Failing to respond to tribal requests for technical assistance.
8. Failing to assist tribes in asserting their sovereign powers.
9. Entering into leases or contracts on behalf of the tribe without
tr iba 1 approva 1 .
10. Specifically acting to diminish tribal exercise of powers of self-
government.
11. Terminating tribal employees from area office employment without
notification to tribe.
12. Allocating judgment funds without approval of tribal council.
13. Displaying nepotism and favoritism in agency office hiring practices.
14. Withholding information on tribal trust resources from tribe.
15. Advising tribal members to sell their land to qualify for state
welfare.
16. Failing to act upon tribal requests for Secretarial approval of
contracts.
17. Failing to act upon tribal request for Secretarial approval of
250
tribal const itutionf;, constitul ional amfiKlmonts, orditiancos,
resolutions, charters.
18. Mismanaging tribal trust assets and resources.
19. Obstruct! nc) tribal negotiations with Fc'dr-ral anoncir-!;.
20. Discouraging tribes from contracting Federal programs which would
obviate Bureau services.
21. Distributing Federal program monies in an arbitrary manner, relying
upon the broad discretionary power of the Secretary."
Recommendation :
Mr. Kennerly indicated that he agreed with the report in general and
found it to be both concise and valid. He also indicated concurrence with
all findings and recommendations as listed in the chapter. In addition,
Mr. Kennerly was adamant about the need for protection, preservation
and enlargement of the Indian land base.
Chapter 6 - "Federal Administration" - Tom Whitford and Ivan Raining Bird
C omment : (Ivan Raining Bird)
"I generally agree with the statements and recommendations in the chapter.
I do, however, feel that the following should be deleted from page 12,
3rd paragraph: 'and administrativ<^ regulations, which require tribal
governments to come under state jurisdiction'
I feel that the content of this chapter provides an accurate, useful
picture of the situation. In closing my comments I will read a prepared
statement from our tribal council:
'We, from Rocky Boys Reservation are opposed to the recommendations made
by Senator Meeds. The Chippewa Cree have pending treaty claims. We
should request to extend the lifetime of the Indian Claims Commission
until such time that all Indians are satisfied.
Today the Montana Tribes are confronted with Joint Resolution 35. This
again is one goal that Senator Meeds is pushing for (state jurisdiction) .
There are many good things that the Policy Review Commission have recom-
mended. We believe as a group we should support these in every way
possible. • "
Recommendations :
Mr. Raining Bird indicated that he endorsed all of the recommendations
in Chapter 6, but offered on additional recommendation:
"The Congress should have all monies meant for Indians go directly to
the tribes and not be channeled through states."
251
haptcr 7 - "Economic Development" - Vicky Desonia
Comment :
"Conflict of Federal trust responsibility in economic development is
a major detriment as evidenced by BTA manaciemont of Indian foro:;(:;,
lease lands, governmental discouragement of land acquisition and (.on-
solidation, and insonsistencies in state and federal taxation. Long
range tribal planning is impeded by the funding systems on which tribes
depend which are basically short-term. Exploitation of Indian natural
resources by non-Indian interests does not result in economic dcvi.-lopmcnt .
The goals of self-determination and a high standard of living can only
be realized if Indian people maintain control of their land and resources.
Government should encourage Indian-controlled programs.
I am going to ask Mr. Lucas, from our office, to submit a separate comment
and list of recommendations."
Recommendations :
Ms. Desonia agreed with the context of the recommendations in the
chapter but offered the following additions:
1. "Congress should encourage individual as well as tribal economic
development with continuation of the Indian Finance Act with
reappropriation of funds and full implementation of the loan
programs ;
2. Indian heirship problems need to be resolved in order for effective
administration and economic development. Congressional support
and funding for investment capital for economic development is a
real need."
Note : «
Mr. Barney Old Coyote stated that he felt the economic development
chapter was not "harsh" or "direct" enough in terms of its statement
and subsequent recommendations. He felt that the chapter was too
"grant oriented" and not more appropriately "capitalistic" in view
of an approximate Indian land base of 295 million acres and billions
of dollars in resources. He closed by stating that Federal policies
promoted "big business" in terms of the investment of "Indian money."
hapter 8 - "Social Services" - Ron Sullivan
Comment :
"Indian welfare recipients face a bureaucratic logjam. They must contend
with a poorly defined three tiered system of programs on the Federal,
state and local levels. The confusion arising from these ovor]api>ing
and at times conflicting programs has led to inefficiency and abuse
in the delivery of Indian welfare and social services.
Social services programs that relate to Indian people are both under-
funded and understaffed. Whose responsibility is it? State? or
252
Federal? in terms of the provision of Indian social services? This
needs to be determined. This year, as an example, the Montana State
Legislature has turned down all bills relative to Indian educational
and social services."
Recommendati ons:
Mr. Sullivan stated that the recommendations as outlined in the chapter
were good, but in closing, he offered the following additions:
1. State legislatures should recognize tribes as "local government:;"
thus making them eligible for the direct receipt of I'ederal funds.
2. Congress should endeavor to clarify Federal/state responsibilities
in relation to the responsibility in providing education/social
services to American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
Note :
At this time Mr. Tom Thompson stated that there was an obvious dichotomy
of purpose in terms of tribal sovereignty/Indian self-determination vs.
educational and social programs that in general are "compensatory" in
nature. He further stated that as long as tribes are not semi or totally
independent financially, and as long as the Federal and state governments
controlled the funds and programs, that these would always be "strings
attached." Mr. Thompson recommended that the Federal Government be asked
to formally recognize its basic legal obligation to provide Indian
educational and social services.
Chapter 9 - "Off Reservation Indians" - Pat Morris
Comment :
I. Introduction
..."Indians who remain in cities and those who migrate to and from
the cities have special needs and their fulfilment is based on
certain Indian rights which must be recognized"
Major policy issue
How far does trust responsibility extend:
Historical Overview
Government has not recognized their responsibility for the creation
of off reservation Indians through assimilation programs.
Government view is that to move off the reservation is
to break trust status and move toward assimilation
examples : (a) Dawes Act/General Allotment Act of 1877
(b) Off Reservation Boarding Schools
(c) Relocation Programs
Result is the movement of Indians from tribal lands into cities.
253
Conclusion
"Federal government after creating Urban migration has failed
to provide adequate services and address the special needs of
Indian people, particularily in the areas of housing, health
and omploymont:.
Wh\
Historically the executive Branch has tried trust relationship to land
Yet, no court, act of congress or constitutional provision states
trust responsibility "stops at the reservation gate"
Government View :
Indian trust is equated with land
assumption that if Indian leaves the reservation he is
consciously forsaking his heritage and tribe.
Indian View
Indian trust includes land and individual people of tribe
Indian leaves reservation because of government proding and
lack of housing, employment and education programs on the
reservation .
Indian does not forsake his/her heritage. The overwhelminci
majority of off reservation Indians continue to be tribal
members
Failure of reservation to support all tribal members is a
function of government planning.
Vet
...the Federal Government refused and largely still refuses
to recognize any overall trust responsibility to provide
services to off reservation Indians"
Recommendations :
"Indian Response
Recommend:
Federally funded urban Indian Centers which are the focus of
Indian managed urban human services related to housing, health
and employment.
1. emergency situations
2. personal and financial counseling
3. referral and non- reservation orientation
4. insure flow of public monies
254
I low the Urban Indian CcnLcrs woijl(] b e organ i/.ocl
1. Redirect Federal, State and local programs to Indian
Centers for administration.
Only programs for wtiich tribfjr; would not eligible
would bo involved. i.e. Urban i^rogram funds
2. At no time would the Indian Center "take over the
relationship between the tribal government and the
tribal member
3. Tribal government would be a viable alternative. Tribes
could assist and monitor funds for urban Indians."
At the end of Chapter 9 is a list of recommendations concerning Urban
off-reservation Indians (9-19) to which Mr. Morris indicated a general
concurrence.
Mr. Morris closed by calling attention to page 9-9, paragraph 1, second
sentence: "...that the exclusion of non-reservation Indians..." lie
further stated that "non-reservation" had a distinct difference in
connotation from "off-reservation" and that "non" should be changed to
"off".
Chapter 10 - "Terminated Tribes" - Karen Fenton
Commen t:
"Termination refers to an entire era of Federal-Indian relations, it was
an era when the U. S. extended its assimilation philosophy to diminish
and in some instances end Federal responsibility to, and protection of,
Indian tribes. Some of the indicated explanations for that particular
era are:
(1) notion that the way to cure poverty among Indians was to integrate
them into the dominant society;
(2) Indian and Congressional disgust at BIA oiscrations;
(3) preceived inadequacy of law and order on or near reservations, -
(4) desire of non-Indians to obtain valuable tribal lands;
(5) Federal Governments desire to shift its economic expenditures
"burden" to tlie states.
In a technical sense, termination refers to those 13 legislative acts
which autliorized procedures for cessation of the Federal-Indian relation-
ships of particular tribes. Not all tribes slated for termination were ir
fact terminated. There is a current question as to the legality of some
of the terminations of the California Rancherias. This question has been
raised because of the failure of the Federal Government to follow
statutorily mandated procedures. Non-compliance raises many legal
issues including the potential liability of the U. S. for unlawful
termination. Many view that court action against the U. S. would bo
favorable.
255
The termination era was an out-qrowth oT a century of assimilation
policies.
Recommendations :
Ms. Fenton closed by stating thnt sh^^ was in concurrence with the
chapter recommendations.
hapter 11 - "Unrecognized Indians" - Karen Fenton
Ms. Fenton began by quoting from the chapter introduction:
"The Executive Branch of the United States fails to administer Indian
programs to a number of Indian tribes. With the singular exception of
specific termination acts, there is no legal basis for the Executive
Branch's exclusion of tribes from its general services to Indians, and there
is no legitimate foundation for administrative discretion in identifying
the Indian services population. Through a number of historical circum-
stances or coincidences, tribes were simply ignored or forgotten.
Because these tribes have been forgotten, their rights to land and self-
determination have been overlooked as well as their rights to federal
Indian programs. Today, many of these tribes have land title problems,
jurisdictional questions, poor health, few educational opportunities,
and economic difficulties; yet the Bureau of Indian Affairs offers them
no assistance in these areas. Many state and county governments are
perplexed by the nebulous political status those tribes hold."
Recommendations :
Ms. Fenton stated that in general she disagreed with the recommendations
of the chapter unless recommendations such as the following were contingent
upon increased Congressional appropriations commensurate with non- «
recognized tribal membership:
1. The Federal Government should extend its Indian programs to all
Indian tribes.
2. To dispel administrative hesitations and to clarify the intention of
Congress, Congress should adopt in a concurrent resolution a statement
of policy affirming its intention to recognize all Indian tribes as
eligible for the benefits and protections of general Indian legisla-
tion and Indian policy; and directing the Executive Branch to serve
all Indian tribes.
"Special Circumstances — Alaska-Oklahoma-California" - Unassigned
As indicated earlier, the workshop participants felt that this chapter
could be addressed best by American Indian/Alaska Native people who
reside in the aforementioned states.
93-440 O - 78
256
Chapter 13 - "Miscellaneous'^ - Ear] Rarlow
Comment :
"There is throughout most levels of American sociohy a substantial
lack of knowledge concerning the legal, social, and political stain.';
of Indian people and tribes and their history on this continent."
Recommendations :
Mr. Barlow indicated a general concurrence with the recommendations
of this chapter including the initial recommendation as listed on
page 13-1:
"Congress by appropriate legislation should provide funds for the
development of educational programs concerning Indian people."
In closing, Mr. Barlow offered the following additional recommendations:
1. Appropriate federal officials working in cooperation with rep-
resentatives of tribal governments should study tribal governments
and formulate a process by which such governments will bo periodically
reviewed by Indian people and recommended changes voted upon by
eligible tribal electors.
2. The B.I. A. should be studied and restructured if necessary in order
to make it more responsive to the needs of Indian people. A greater
proportion of funds and services should be channeled dircr:tly to
the people. Overhead or administrative costs of the B.I. A. are too
high and must be reduced. Also, the high ratio of B.I. A. and I. U.S.
employees to Indians must be reduced.
3. Indian preference for employment in the B.I. A. and I.H.S should be
continued and funds provided for training and recruitment of Indians
to fill vacated positions.
4. An adequate land base is essential to the survival of Indians residing
on Indian Reservations. Population pressure and a dwindlina land
base are two factors which have forced Indian people to miorate to
urban areas. A program to maintain tlie current land base and expand
the base in the future should be assigned a high priority.
5. The heirship policy which governs the inheiritance of Indian allotments
is unrealistic and should be changed. In many instances there are
so many heirs that none benefits from the land. A funding proaram
should be set up whereby the land can be purchased for the benefit
of the tribe.
6. The value of tribal natural resources has be estimated at nearly one
hundred billion dollars and yet the material poverty of Indians is
the worst in the nation. Most economic development plans benefit
non-Indians more than Indians. Economic plans which will benefit
Indians and which are consistent with tribal desires should bo de-
veloped and implemented.
257
Chapter 14 - "Dissent by Cotigrcssman, I,]oy<l Meeds" - ICarl Barlow
Common t;
"Congressman Meeds states that since he had "serious and substantial
disagreemont with the Commi srjion ' s findiiiQ?^ and rorjommi^ndat ions" hf
retained throunh the Conmi.s.siDii, Frederick .) . Martonc of the Ari:joria
bar to work wil'i him in evaluating the Commission's report. He i.harqos
the Commission was non-objective and the Majority Report is the product
of one sided advocacy in favor of American Indian Tribes. He state;,
"Congress will either have to authori i:o another commir-ision to nscii i ,iiii
the views of non-Indians, the states, and the United States or ijcrrorin
that function on its own."
He admits that because of tlic Commissinn's schedule that ho had "noithi'r
the time nor the resources to adequate! " e-valuatc, critique, and
recreate the report . "
However, he challenges "unwarranted findings and conclusiojis" in the
report. Those include tribal sovereigntv, iurisdiction , trust respon-
sibility, social welfare programs, sovereign immunity, assertion of state
claims, regulatory power of tribes over off-reservation members, and
definitional problems associated with the words "Indian" and "Tribe."
Legislative Recommendations: (By Meed s)
1. Congress enact legislation directly prohibiting Indian courts from
exercising criminal jurisdiction over any person, whether Inrlian or
non-Indian, who is not a member of the Indian tribe which operates
the court in qui;Stion.
2. Congress enact legislation prohibiting Indian courts from exercising
civil jurisdiction over any person, whether Indian or non-Indian, who
is not a member of the tribe which operates tlie court in cju.^stioti, •
unless the non-Indian defendent expressly and voluntarily submits
to the jurisdiction of the tribal court after the claim arises upon
which the suit is brought.
3. Congress enact legislation providing that states shall have the same
power to levy taxes, the legal incidence of which falls upon non-
Indian activities or property, on Indian reservations as they have
off Indian reservations.
4. Congress expressly prescribe taxation of non-members or tiroperty of
non-members by Indian tribes.
Public l,aw 93-580 clearly, concisely, and explicitly sets forth the
congressional findings of tlie Federal Government's historical and
special legal relationship with American Indian people and declares
that two comprehensive review of Indian affairs be conducted. The law
specifically mandates that five of the eleven Commissioners be Indians
and each investigating task force shall have a majority of whom shall b
of Indian descent.
258
The A.I.P.R.C. w.js oroatod ;imd oroiiriizr-d as sf.cci Ficfl by I'.r,. <)!-'.:«)
and the majority t^iyort fully reflects the intent of the law.
Generally, at the outset, Federally recognized Indians residing on
reservations were critical of the Commistiion because in their iurUiemont
too much representation was given to urban nnd non- federal 1 y re(;o<|nixed
Indians.
Congressman Meed's findings and conclusion arc inad.jquately documented
and exhibit a strong anti-Indian bias. His dissent is not object;.! ve" .
Re comme nda tions :
1. Congressman Meed's Minority Report and especially his legi:jl nt ive
recommendation should be totally rejected.
2. The use of A.I.P.R.C. resources to retain Freiierick J. Martone
should be investigated by Congress and determine if this action was
■in keeping with the law.
3. His contention that "American Indian Tribes lost their sovnignty
through discovery, conquest, cession, treaties, statutes and
history" is indefensible and flies in the face of the ideals to
which this nation subscribes. His contention should be vigorously
challenged and buried forever.
4. He cites as fact "that American Indian tribes were conquered and
subordinated to the will of the people of the United States".
The supposition of "might makes right" and " l;wo wrongs make a
right" is inimical to concepts held sacred by American citizens and
must be rejected.
Conclusion .
At the completion of all chapter presentations and recommendations,
the participants were asked to inform their Tribal Councils of the
workshop proceedings. The participants were then informed that the
workshop data would be compiled and mailed as soon as possible. The
workshop meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Friday, April 15, 1977.
259
APPENDIX A
MONTANA INTER- TRIBAL POLICY BOARD
MEMORANDUM: A. I. P. R. C.
APRIL 6, 1977
260
^A"^/ v} '^/.i) '^/}
Monic-nr: !;'^;-^' ■''■,■ ■ i "-i'"'
c/o Bureau of Indian Affairs
316 North 26th Street
omas E. Pablo Billings, MT 59101
April 6, 1977
MEMORANDUM
TO:
All Tribal Chairmen
All MITPD Delegates
All Interested Individuals or Organizations
FROM: THomas E. Pablo, Chairman
jil Beaumont, Sr. Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board
lecretary-Treasuter
SUBJECT: Emergency Board Meeting April 14-15, 1977
As Chairman of the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board,
I am calling an EMERGEWCY MEETING April 14-15, 1977,
which will be held at the Presidents Conference Room,
Montana Hall, on the Campus of Montana State University,
Bozeman, Montana, starting promptly at 9:00 A.M. each day.
If you need further directions, please call Mr. Robert
Peregoy, Director, Native American Studies at 994-3881.
The purpose of this meeting is to review and make
recommendations on the tentative report from the
American Policy Review Commission.
Because of Mr. Earl Barlow's involvement with the
Commission, he will be the Coordinator of this meeting.
Two members from the Commission will also attend to
provide the Tribes with assistance.
There are 13 Chapters and a Dissent by Congressmen
Lloyd Meeds in the tentative final report of the
American Indian Policy Review Commission. The Tribes
have until April 23, 1977, to make their comments
known to the Commission.
261
MITPD MEMOIIANDUM
April 6, 1977
Page 2
To facilitate a review of the report on April 14-15, each Tribe
is requested to be prepared to make a presentation on 2 chaptci
of the rcjjort. Each Tribe should be prepared to make
recommendations on their assigned chapters.
BLACKFEET
Chapter 1 History of United States - Indian Relations
Chapter 2 Legal Conceipts in Indian Law
Chapter 3 Contemporary Conditions of Indians
Chapter 4 Federal - Indians Trust Relations
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Tribal Government
Federal Administration
FORT BELKNAP
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Economic Development
Social Services
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Of f -Reservation
Terminated Tribes
NORTHERN CHEYENNE
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Unrecognized Indians
Special Circustances
Alaska-Oklahoma -California
Chapter 13
Miscellaneous
Dissent by Congressmen Lloyd Meeds
If the Landless have received copies of this report, we are asking
you to consider any of the cliapters that are pertinant to you and
that you be able to make a presentation.
262
MITPB MEMORANDUM
April 6, 1977
Page 2
Summaries of the completed workshops and recommendations made
by the Idaho Inter-Tribal Policy Board, along with evaluation
forms to be used at this meeting will be submitted in the next
couple of days.
We would like to extend an invitation to all interest and
involved individuals or organizations to attend this meeting.
Agenda attached.
p/s The National Association of Counties-Indian Task Force will
be meeting in Helena, Montana, April 26-27, 1977, at the
Colonial Inn in the Executive Room.
April 26th they will be making a presentation on the tentative
final report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission.
April 27th they will probably draft recommendations adverse to
the Commission's findings.
Looks like a MOD effort. If you can, please plan on attending.
263
MONTANA INTER-TRIDAL POLICY DOAIU)
AGENDA
April 14-15, 1977
Presidents Conference Room
Montana Hall
Montana State University
Bozeman, Montana
APRIL 14, 1977 ORDER OF BUSINESS
9:00 A.M. Call to order by Thomas E. Pablo, Chairman - MITPB
Ceremony Prayer
Roll C?.ll
Introduction of Tribal Chairmen and any delegation present
9:30 A.M. Overall Review of the American Indian Policy Review
Commission by Mr. Earl Barlow.
10:00 A.M. Presentation of reviews and recommendation by the
individual tribes.
12:00 P.M. LUNCH
1:30 P.M. Continuation of recommendations.
5:00 P.M. Recess
APRIL 15, 1977
9:00 A.M. Call to order by Thomas E. Pablo, Chairman - MITPB
Cerenony Prayer
Roll Call
Introduction of Tribal Chairmen and any delegation present
9:30 A.N. Compiling and writing of recommendations.
12:00 P.M. LUNCH
1:30 P.M. Closed Executive Board meeting.
2:30 P.M. Adjournment
264
APPENDIX B
A. I. P. R. C. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
265
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Ray Dupuis
Tom I'ablo
3. Sonny Morigeau
Ivan Raining Bird
Vicky Desonia
Joe W. Show
Roland Kennerly
Earl Barlow
Barney Old Coyote
Urban Bear Don't Walk
Ron Sullivan
Tom Whit ford
Rena Blakoslee
Karen Fenton
Dwight Billedeaux
Henry Old Coyote
Aurice Show
Dennis Bear Don't Walk
Tom Thompson
C. Patrices Morris
Robert Van Geutcn
Carmen Taylor
Mauford King
Walter Heming
Edna Hicth
Confederated Salish S. KoDlrnai
Council Member
Confederated Salish s Kootenai
Council Member
Rocky Boys Council Member
Coord, of Indian Affairs Office
Blackfeet Tribal Council Member
Blackfeet
A.I.P.R.C. Task Force #5
N.T.C.A.
M.I.T.P.B.
Montana Indian Legislative Office
B.I. A.
M.I.T.P.B.
Confederated Salish S Kootenai Tribes
Browning Public Schools
U.S. Senate Select Staff
Blackfeet
Crow
Chairman, N.A.C.I.E.
NAS, M.S.U.
NAS, M.S.U.
Student, M.S.U.
Student, M.S.U.
Student, M.S.U.
Student, M.S.U.
Dixon, MT
Box Elder, MT
Helena, MT
Browning, MT
Billings, MT
Browning , MT
Washington, DC
Billings, MT
Helena, MT
Billings, MT
Billings, MT
Dixon, MT
Browning, MT
Washington , DC
Browning, MT
Billings, MT
Browning, MT
Bozeman , MT
Bozeman , MT
Bozeman , MT
Bozeman , MT
Bozeman , MT
266
APPENDIX C
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
P. L. 93-580
267
American Iiidi;in Policy Review Comiussion
Tlirout;hout the liistory of Icdcral-Iiulian relations there has never
been a coiMprclicnsi vc .ipiu-oacJi by the Conj'.ress ajid the Ixecutive thai
dealt effectively witli Indiaji iirohlcms and, at tlie s;uiie time, efficiently
fulfilled Inuiaii jieeds.
As a result, Indiaji policy has been shajx;d by a frai'.;:K"nted, piece-
meal approach which served to inhibit, rather ttiaii prorotc Indian
devclopi^cnt and has directly led to the deep despair and frustration
vented in the occui^ation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the siege
of V.'ounded }Cncc.
Forty seven years have gone by since the last comprehensive study
of Indian Affairs vas conducted. It has come doun to us as the Mcrir.n
Report t%tiicli was conducted by the Institute for Covcmren t l vcsearch_ in
1928^ The N'eriain I^cport helped foster a cliiiatc of Congressional aware-
ness of tribal concerns which in turn led to widespread reforms of the
1930's, including the 1934 Indian Reorgajiization Act. In tlie inter-
vening years the original intent of these reform policies has been com-
promised and distorted through administrative ignorance and neglect.
Now, finally, the urgency of the problems and the confusion as to Indian
goals and methods of attaining them have led to the creation of the
American Indian Policy Review Commission. Consisting of three Senators,
three representatives , five Indian mem bers, and supported by a dis-
tinguished task force of 27 specialists, it will have the power, quali-
fications, and Indian participation to explore all of the major problem
areas. The Commission will be able to submit recomm.endations from which
the Congress may legislate meaningful approaclies to fulfill the present
and future needs of Indian people and chart tlie course of Ancrican Indian
history for the next century. /f^ '^'^ f!^ ^ ,? \ / : ??
268
PuMic !.;.« 93.;no
CONCKKSSIONAI. KINDINCS
Tl.e Conpr-vs jfirr rarrful t-aI.-w of tl..- Fr.l.-ral r^.vrrnm.nl's hUlnrlr.,! j„,l >|„-, ,at lrp.l r.lalion^.ip w.ll, .\n,. n. .u,
Indian pro|.l.', fiinl, tl,;.t-
(a) llir |...li.A Mn|.l,'M..„t,NM iIm- ,rljl,...L-lM|, li.T- sl.ifl.'.l jimI rU^ivj.ii w,U, , li.inu'.M^ a.lrMin,Mr.,l„ ,„ I |,a..>rM^
y«ar>, witliout a|.|Mrri,t rnhoiul <I.m^-i. jii.I v.illunil a .■.mMMmt ;;,mI n jHm.m- In.li.in -.If =uffi. i.nrv,
(b) iIht.- Iijv l..-.-n no -.n.r.il .uTiii.rrh.i.-u.- r.-M. vs ,.f ,„,„l,„ l „f l„,l,.in jILiir- l.y iIh- I „,l.-.l -l.il.- nor .1
,-oll.T.-.il in>..|iu.ilM.ri .if ll,.- rii.iru i.r..M.Mi- jn.l i-ii... ,in,.K..I i.i ll„- ,„iuiu,\ ..| IikIi.im .illjir- .- ■ tl,,- I'l.'Il
M.-ti.i... l;.|...rl .,.n.lu. l,-,l I.N ll..- I, .-1,1., I.- f,.r C.^.r,,,,,,,,! K.-.'jr, I, ; u„.l
DIXll.AKATKlN iH' mtl'i i>l-:
Con^r.s- .l,-.h,r.s ll,at il ,> lim,l> jnil .-M„llal lo ron.liK I a r.,m|.rr-l„n-iv.- r.u.w ,>f llir lii-Liri, al an.l l.-,al .l.v.l,,],-
menls un.l.-rKi.,;: ll„- ln,l,ans' u„,.|i..' r>bl,..„>l,i|, «,ll. tl,.' Ki-.l.:ral Covrn,,,.-,,! ,., ..r.l. r lo iLlr-rm,.,.. ih.- .,al„r,- and
scopf of n.-cc>«3r\ rcvisiotis in the formulation of policirs and proj.Tan!3 for tlir I,('ni-|,t of lixliat,.-..
Resnitrd by Ihr denote and Hniisr of Hriircs'niatnvs of the i'mfd Sintps of Ainrrira 111 Consrets oiscmfc/crf. Tlut-
(a) In ordrr to carry out ll,r |,ur|.os,-s .l.;-.ril,.-d in the (ir.aniUe hrroof and ai l',irth.-r set oul l,iTr,n, thiTC is her.-by
created the Amrriiaii Indian Policy Idvii-w Commission, hereinafter ri'fi-ired to as the "Commission".
(b) The Coinm,-Mon shall I.e composed of eleven meml.ers. as follows:
(1) Ihrer Meml.iiv of the S.nate appoint.-.l l.y ih.- President pro tempore of the Senate, two from the majority
party ami on,- from the minority parly :
(2) three \hmliers of the llo,ise of Kepr^-entalives appointe.l l,y the Speaker of the House of I\epresenlativ.-.s.
two from the majorily party and one from thi- mic.ontv partv; and
(3) five Indian memher- x< provide.l in sul.s.etion (e) of this section.
(c) At it.s or-ani/ation m.elini;, the meml..-r> of the Commission appointed pursuant to s.-el„.n (l,)(l) ami (l.)(2) of
this section shall el.-el from amonu iheir memi.erv a Chairman and a \ iee Chairman Imme.lial. K llierealter. such m.ni.
bers shall sei.el. I,y majority \ote, Tne Indi.ni nienihers of the Commission from ll„- Indian eoinnnimlv. as IoIIow.h;
(1) three memhei^; shall he .-elected from Indian Inhes that arc reco-ni/.ed hy the Federal i;overnmenl;
(2) one ni.'niher shall be -elected to repre-,nt urhan Indians; and
(3) one member -hall be -elected -ho is a member of an Indian f.Toup not reeo::ni7.c,l by ihe Federal Cowniment
None of the Indian iiiemhen. shall be employees of the Feileral Government concurrently with their term of service on
the Gimnii-sion nor -hall there be more than one member from any one Indian tribe.
(d) Vacancies in the membership of (he Commission shall not affect the power of the remaining memberji lo execute
tlie functions of the Commission and shall he filled in tin- same manner as in the ca-x- of the ori^pnal appointment.
269
(c) Six niriiilii'i> (if till (:.Mtinii~»<
n, may riiii.liirl In .itiii..>: I'mmlnl.
(0 M<ml.rr. i.r ll..' (:<..vrr>.. «.!.,. ..rr lo. iiilM-r. of (lir Coitiini.Mon >l<..ll M,>r v>
.tli..ut »,n , ,..n,.. M.,i
dial e.-.m.-.l f..r ll.. ir -.r%i,.> ;., M, n.l.rr. of (:....;;r.ss. I.iil ll,._v ,mn \,v r. inil.iir-,-
1 f..r lrn^.'l, s,il.«,.|.,.
nriTssirx .'x|..m..> ....i.rr..! I.n tl....< ... ll..- |..'rr..rman. .- ,<{ tUiii.-^ v.Mr.l |„ ll„ ( ,,
<IM>I>M.,I.
(k) ll..- I..,l.:..i ,.,..i,l„r- ,.1 ll,. „lv.|.... ..Lull r.-.-.lv.- .■..Il,|,.„„.l..... f..r .n,!
.I.i> -11.1, ii.,'..il..'r- ..
ui'liiiJ |i<'rl..r. 11.11...' .ll ilulh- t.M.'.i 11. III.' (:..iii.iil'.>j<iii lit u .l..il\ r..l.' 1..1I 1.. . s...-
1 ll.. .I.nly .'.|.iK..I.'i,i
UllllUjI .'.Hll|i.'ll^jll.il. lll.ll in.iv In* |.,ll.l l.i .'lll|.lt.v C.'S ..1 ll.c ( llllf.l Mill.'.* >»'.iut.' t'
mmliur,.-.! f..r Iruv.l .-ximii-.s. inilii.l..iL' |.<r .li.n. in liou ..f suIiM'U'Iii .-.
Sec. 2. ll .I1..II III- III.' ililU ..f 111.' (:..i„.ni-,..n 10 Milk.- .1 ,,.ni,.r.'l,.',i-iv,' nnr-
"'.llmi'llof'
<n<J llu' .MOji.' .if Midi iliity -li:iil in. III. 1.'. I.iit ^iioJI nut U l.ii.il.'.i l.>-
<^(l) 11 -tii.K :mi.| .iii.iK-i~ ..r th.' r:....-litulli.ll. tr.'.Ui.'^. >t,il.il.'... in.li.i.il imI.t
.r.'l.l.....^, .01.1 I'v.'..,
dcUriniM.' ill.' .nini.ul. .- .>l ll..' imii.|u.' r.-ljti..ii.-.|ii|. Ii.lis.'cn tl.r I'.'.l.r.il (i.n
biKJ an.! olIi.T r.'>oi,rci'S tli.-% p.i^-.-vs;
n.ni,.,,, .1,1.1 Imlian „
•^2) 5 rr>_h-w .,i ll.c ,,„li,.„'., ,,r.Kli,'.',. .n.l siri,, lur,' „f llir F.'il.-r.nl ..j.-un.
resource ami |iri»i.lini; s.'nic.'s 1.. Iii.l.jii.-: I'nni,ic,l. Hut vurli r.'vi.-w -lull
.li.ir...',l w.lli |ir..l.','l
ii.'lii.).' .-. .ii..n.,^..'nl.-i.
Bureau of In.lian .Affairs iitiliziii;; cvprrLs from llic |.ul.lic an.) |. rival.' ^.■.:tor:
•^3) an (•y.iiiiMi.iiion of tl.r jl.ilul,':, an.l yror.'.liir.'S. for u'rantin:: Fi.lcr.il r..'c
, ^^^^ ^^^ , ^,^^__^_^.^
Indian coininuniii.'> jn.l in.li\i.iii:.ls:
»'(4) llic ell. . tinn and i iiiiu.il.ili.in of ilala necessary lo undcr-land ill.- cxt
Ill of Indian ni^eds w
cxisi or will r^i^l in llic n.'jr luUir.';
nalioiiiJ l.-i.l of Cm.rnnicnl lo (irovidi- Indians with iiiaxinium |.arlici|.alion
devvloi.ni.nt;
I.I fully rc|,refcnl In.
ill iiolicy formation a
(f.) a .•..n-iil.'r:ili..n of all.riLilivc m.-llin.N lo Mr.-ni-lh.-n trii.al ■■nv.'f.ni.'iil
lliat ll..' trili.'S nii^
.I..-ir nicnili..,. ami. at .1,.' ...n„. .„,.... ,uaranU'e';i7f;::da„~al n.lils ..i ,n.
*17) llic r.r..m,„.-,i,!alion o.f .-.^h mn.lifi.'ation of »iMi,i, laws. |,ro, .',iiir.'<.
iM.lual lii.liai.siand
r.':-„l:illnn.<. i„ilir„--, a
.s will, i„ ll.c j.i.|.,mM,t of III. -oini;;;-;!;^: bcs. serve .0 carT^ouHiiTHi. >
and .lcclara:ion of |.
POWERS OF THE CO.MMISSIO.N
Sec. 3. (a) Tlie Comml.^sion or. on aiilliorizalion of the Commission. .11. v r.iM.millP c of l«ri or more minilii:rs is
authorized, for llic |iiir|io.<rs of cirrNin;; out the provisions of lliis r.solulion. lo so^.in^l .TiJ_al such placs an.l tiiM.-.-
during the s.-ssiuns, recesses, an.l a.ljourncd |.iTiods of Coiigre.ss. lo r.'.iiiir i' l.\ miI.|..ik i or oiIi.tki'^.- llie alli-ndaiir.- of,
such witnesses and llie production of such books, papers, and docuin.Ml-. lo auiiiini-.U'r such o.iliis and affirnialion>. lo
lake such Icstiniony, to procure such prinlinj and bindinR, and lo make such cxpenililiircf. as it deems advisahlc. The
Commission may make such rules respecting its organization and procedures as it deems necessarv, except that no rrcon
mendation shall be re[iorled from the Coninii.ssion unless a majority of the Coniniis'iion absent, lipon the aiithonzation
of the Coniiiii^sion snhpenas niav he i.'isu.-d o\er the siLTialurc of the Chairman of the Commission or of any m.niliir
designated by him or the Coniini>sion. an.l may he serviil liy such pen-oii or p.rsons .is may be desiiinaU.I by s.jcli Lh.il
man or member. The Chainnan of the Commission ur any member thereof mav administer oaths or afllrniallons lo
witnesses.
(h) The provisions of .seelions I9J through 19-i, inclusive, of title 2. l.'nil.-d Slates Co.le. shall apply in lb.' cas.-
of any failtir.- of any witii.-^s lo comply hIiIi any siibpeiia whni suninioii.'<l under ibis MCtion.
branch of Ibc Cov.rnni.nl any inlorm.ilion il .l.-.-ms iiee.-.ssary lo earr*' out its fiiiirlioiis uiuler this resolution an.l .ach
such department, a!;i'ncy, or instrumentality is aulhurized and direcleil lo furnish siieh information lo the Coninii.~~ioii
•nd lo conduct such studies and surveys as may b« rci|uesled by the Chairman or the Vice Chairman when a.rtiii}; as
Chaimiaii.
(d) If the Commission requires of any witness or of any Government a^iiiey ihe prodiielion of any materials
which have theretofore been submitted to .1 (Government a<:eney on a conndeiilial IlisLh, and the eoiiridenlialily of iIiom-
materials is protected by statute, the nuilcriai so produced shall be held in conrideiice by the Comniissitm.
270
INVESTICATI.NC TASK KOKCES <
Sec. 4. (a) A.< iooii li |ir.icli< jblr afirr llir iirtMiiiotion o( llii- Coiiimiv^ioii. llii- ruiiirm^ion slull. for thr |»ir|M
pf Lillirrir ii: (.1. |~ .mil diImt ii iliiriii.iluM i ii.ii— .ir > Id c«m oul il.i rvi|)tuinl)lliliis |Miniijnl lo urtum 1! of \\\\* r.'M)l
i"nl> of »lioiii Uiull la- of lil.lun ilociil. S
ikJiiii; ln»l> nn.w;
■ |>|.oiMl itu.-li Mlin.: (ii-k l..r... 1,, lu- ,i>rM|MM<'.l of Oir
rr |.rr>o.„. o
lffull»,.i..lo.l.n,-. ll„.„l,.l lo-
ci) ln.>tr..-, «\»\xK^ .U..I hV,l.'r,.|.|iMlu...
rcl.Uon.,|„,,.
(2) t,iU^o».rn„u„t;
(;i) Krdiril u<lrinui>lr.ilioii am! Klriiclurc o
fln.liaoafr.i
(4) Ft'tlrrul, >\»W. loul tnlial jiinMlictloli;
C'.) '"•,l'--"l '■''"'■■■llLViL
(6) InJiaiihrallii;
(7) ri'scrvation dt;vclo[iniciit;
(0) utlian, fural nonrtscnation, terminated, and iioiifederally rccogniicd Indians; and
(9) Indian law revijjon, conjoiidation, and codification,
(b) (i) Such task forced slmll have sucii powcra and auUiorilics, in earning out their rc-ponnibilitieA, a.<) sli.tll hi'
conferred uponlhcin by the Commission, except tliat they sliaJl have no power to i^sue subpcnas or to admiiustf.T uaths
or affirmations: froiided, That they may call upon the Commijiion or any committee thereof, in the Commiaoion's
diacretion, to assist thum in aecurin^' any testimony, materiala, documents, or other information necessary for their
investigation and study.
(ii) The Commi.-'sion shall require each taak force to provid e writte n querte rly reports to the Commiasion on
the progr esa of the task force and, in tlie discretion of the Commission, an .oral p n-r-ntJlio ii of siich re^io^t. In ordi-r to
inture the correlation of data in the final report ond recommendations of the Commiesion, the Direfln r of tjie C onimr- -
«ion shall c oordinn tc jhc indeufndtnt rfforU rj lUt ta.sk force poiijis.
f (c) The (!onimis.*ion may fix the c om))cn6ati on of the m embe rs of such ta?k forces at a ral e not to f-xcc -d^lhr
(daily equivalent iif the iiigheat rate of annual compensation that may be paid to employees of the United Slatis ieiutc
generally. v/A S .
(d) The Commission shall, pursuant to section 6, insure that the tnak forces a re proviHrd with adi-qu.it.- 'Uff
to that authoriicd under section 6 (a), lo cnrry out the projects asjiuiicd to them.
(e) Fnch ljik__ force appointed by the Commission fhsM, within one year from tile dati- of the appointment of iti
the Commission ita final report of invcsHtntion and study toci-ther with reeomniendatioi'.' thrrcon.
^emben, submi t
REl'ORT OF THE COMMISSION
Sec. 5. (a) Ugonthe report of the ln.sk for ces m ade pursuant to section 4 hereof, the Commission shall review
tnd compile sucli reporta, tojelher with its independent Gndin;'3, into a final report. Within ii.x months afler the reports
of the investigating task forcei, the Commission shali submK its final report, together \vith recommpndati£ns thereon, to
the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of RcpreaealWives. The Commission fihall cease to cxUt six
months after submission of said final report but .not later than June 30, 1977. All records and papers of the Commiision
•hall thereupon be delivered to the Administrator of the General Services Administration for deposit in the Archives of
the United States.
(b) Any re.conuntndation of the Commission involving the enactniinj of legi slation shall be referred by the
Prtaident of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of flepresentatives to the nnprupnale standinj^ committee of llie
Senate and House of Kepresenlatives. respectively, and such committees ahall make a report tlicrcon to tlic respective
houac within two years of such referral.
COMMISSION STAFF
Sec. 6. (a) The Commission may by record vote of a majority of the Commission members, appoint a Director
of the Commission, a Ceneral Counsel, one professional staff member, and three ckncal.asfiatunt.s. The Commission
•hall prescribe the duties and responsibilities of such staff members and fix llieir compensation ul per annum gro^s rates
not in excess of the per annum rates of compensation prcscnbcd for employees of standinff cummiitecs of the Senate.
(b) In carrying out any of iU functions under this resolution, the Commission is aulhorized to utilize the
•ervicea, information, lacilities, and personnel of the Executive depurtmenta and ak't-ncies of ifie Government, and to
procure the temporary or intermittent servicea of expert* or consultanU or organiiaiiona thereof by contract at ratea
of compensation not in excesa of the daily equivalent of tlie higheat per annum rate of compenaation that may be paid
to cmployeea of the Senate generally.
See. 7. There ia hereby authorited to be appropriated • aum not to exceed $2,500,000 to carry out the pro-
viuona of thia resolution. • •
Cr.rrrPrJrrJ.e./^- r^-t^- r. .^,..r.^r. .,,.P.W c....-^....
271
APPENDIX D
LETTERS
93-440 O - 78 - 19
272
American Indian Policy Review Commission
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
2a«M>OSTiicns. sw.
DATE: April 20, 1977
TO: Montana Indian Tribal Councils
FROM: Earl J. Barlow (y-?\j<P
RE: American Indian Policy Review Commission's Tentative Final Report
I have enclosed a copy of the report of persons who participated in a
workshop sponsored by the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board. The purpose
of the workshop was to give tribal representatives an opportunity to review
the Tentative Final Report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission
and formulate comments and recommendations for the Final Report.
Since the report had to be sent to the Commission postmarked no later than
April 23, 1977, it was impossible to wait for feedback from tribal representa-
tives and individuals. Therefore, if you desire to make comments, I suggest
you communicate directly with the Commission prior to April 23, 1977.
American Indian Policy Review Commission
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20515
Telephone: (202) 225-1284
273
jSxoojnincj iJ-^uljLia <::^akooL±
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9
jUioiunLnq, £:yV[onta.na !j<)^t7
April 21, 1977
American Iridian Policy Review Coiranission
House Office Building Annex #2
2nd and D. Streets, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dea
Sirs:
Please find enclosed a copy of an A.I.P.R.C. Workshop report. The report is
the product of a two day workshop as hosted by the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy
Board. Contained within are A.I.P.R.C. "Tentative Final Report" chapter
presentations and recommendations as generated by workshop participants.
The workshop participants hereby respectfully submit their recommendations
and input for this historic study.
Sincerely yours,
Tom Tliompson (j
A.I.P.R.C. Workshop Recorder
T. Pablo
E. Barlow
R. Blakeslee
274
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Nome Agency
P.O. Box 1108
Nome, Alaska 99762
Anrll 8, 1977
Honorable James S. Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk:
I have just completed my review of the American Indian Policy Review
Commission's tentative Final Report and would like to make the follow-
ing comments as pertains to Chapter 12, Special Circumstances - Alaska:
1. Under Findings Number 5 and 6 and Recommendations Number 2, I find
that the situation in Northwestern Alaska is exactly opposite to the
Tlingit-Haida attitude that the Regional entity is the tribe. My
recommendation is that any reference to recognizing the Tlingit and
Haida Indians as a single tribal entity should be omitted or the
villages within the Bering Straits and NANA Regions should be added as
recognized tribal governing bodies. Congress should not enact legis-
lation prescribing the order of preference in which applications for
benefits under federal laws will be received. Tais should be the first
decision made by the Indian groups in fulfilling their desire to attain
a full measure of self-determination.
2. I have read the entire report and someone did a great deal of work.
I fully agree with all other Alaskan recommendations , particularly
those that expedite conveyance of lands to Indian entities and reserva-
tion of essential easements.
Sincerely yours,
Gary T. Longley,
Superintendent
cc:
John Borbridge, Jr., Sealaska
EDMUND C. BflOWN J
275
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
921 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-4775
April 18, 1977
The Honorable Sidney Yates
Chairman, Interior Subcommittee
House Appropriations Committee
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Dear Congressman Yates:
This Department, through its Indian Assistance Program, currently provides
technical assistance and a range of services to Indians living on or near
trust lands. These activities of the Department are designed to assist
tribes to meet their housing and community development needs and to use to
the greatest possible benefit the state and federal funds available for that
purpose. Over the last two years, the Indian community has expressed to us
their concern about the funding provided by the BIA to its Sacramento Area
Office and we have accordingly been carrying out research into the nature
and level of this funding. We have found that there is in fact serious
underfunding which in our view requires remedial action by Congress and
the BIA.
An examination of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Budget data since 1969
reveals that California Indians have not been receiving a fair share of BIA
allocations based either on the service population or on the needs and that
action is required to rectify the present inequitable fundfng levels. Table I
shows that BIA allocations to the Sacramento Area Office of the BIA (encompass-
ing the State of California) since Fiscal Year 1969 have ranged between 0.8%
and 1.9% of the national total despite the fact that the BIA recognizes a
population of 36,255 Indians on or near reservations in California, which is
6.7% of the total estimated BIA service population.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 108 of 1953 which declared federal intent to
terminate responsibility for Indian services in California initially served
as justification for the low funding levels accorded the Sacramento Area.
However, the federal government has long since repudiated the policy of
termination and withdrawal of services. Congress formally enacted such a
policy of self-determination and continuing assistance with the passage of
the Indian Self-Determi nation Act of 1975 which states, in part:
"Congress declares its commitment to the maintenance of the federal
government's unique and continuing relationship with, and responsi-
bility to, the Indian and to the establishment of a meaningful
Indian self-determination policy which will permit an orderly tran-
sition from federal domination of programs providing services to
Indians to effective and meaningful participation by the Indian
people in the planning, conduct, and administration of these pro-
grams and services."
276
Honorable Sidney Yates
April 18, 1977
Page Two
Despite repudiation of the termination policy and although there have been
some increases in BIA allocations to the Sacramento area over the last
decade, California Indians living on or near reservations will receive only
$346.16 per capita in fiscal year 1978, compared to a national average
(including California) of $1,199.32.
According to Mr. Conger, Chief Statistician in the BIA's Washington office,
funding for areas is based on a number of criteria which vary from program
to program. There is apparently no existing formula for allocation on the
basis of population although he informed us that service area population is
a major consideration in determining allocations. Obviously, certain funds,
such as those for forest protection and utilization, go only to Areas where
forests exist. But in comparing Area allocations to Area service popula-
tions (see Table II) it is difficult to conclude that the BIA has adopted
fair and rational formulae. It is possible that consistent criteria are
applied in determining funding. If indeed they exist, they certainly merit review. If
none are used, as seems to be the case, then the BIA should be required by
Congress to develop a system of allocation which provides to California
Indians the funds they need and deserve.
The BIA, in defending its present system of allocation, may point to three
factors crucial to its justification of funding levels.
First, it may argue that the Sacramento Area's on-reservation population
(6,240 as of 1973*) is not sufficient to warrant substantial changes in
future allocations. But according to William Finale, the Director of the
Sacramento Area Office, very few of the BIA's California programs serve
exclusively the 6,240 reservation Indians. Table III lists those programs
and amounts expended on such programs which serve the 36,255 Indians both on
and off reservations and rancherias. The figure of 36,255 includes all rural
Indians living within counties containing trust land.
Table III-A shows the total amount expended on such programs as a percentage
of the total Sacramento Area allocation in Fiscal Year 1977 and 1978. As you
will note, approximately 60% of the total allocation is being expended to
serve the service population of on and near trust land Indians.
Table IV shows that even for those programs that serve on and near reserva-
tion Indians, California Indians are severely underfunded. With 6.7% of
the total estimated BIA service population, the Sacramento Area will receive
in Fiscal Year 1977 only 3. IX of Aid to Tribal Government funds and 0.1% of
Social Services funds. California received only 0.002% of funds allocated
for school operations because the BIA. operates no schools here. As a result,
the State must assume a commensurately greater part of the cost of Indian
education.
Source: "Estimates of Resident Indian Population and Labor Force
Status", BIA, 1973.
277
Honorable Sidney Yates
April 18. 1977
Page Three
While the BIA may contend, when making its allocations, that the on reserva-
tion figure is appropriate, as funding criterion, we note that the Department
of the Interior in submitting to the Congress its Fiscal Year 1977 budget
justification relied on the figure of 36,255 (6.7% of the national total) to
support its budget request. In that justification, the Department referred
to the 1973 estimated BIA service population of 543,000 Indians on and near
reservations "including all rural California Indians in counties including
trust lands."
Secondly, the BIA maintains that it computes current budgets by using past
budgets as data bases. Rather than significantly re-evaluating allocations
each year, the BIA relies on past allocations to determine current ones.
Area offices which are underfunded in one Fiscal Year are likely to be
underfunded in subsequent years. The result has been that while Sacramento
Area's share of the total budget has increased somewhat from 1969, it has
not increased sufficiently to reach an equitable level.
We have been informed by the BIA that its Fiscal Year 1977 budget provided
for the first time an experimental "equity adjustment" for underfunded
Agencies. All Agencies received a standard 1.6% allocation increase, but
those Agencies selected to participate in the "equity adjustment" received
an additional 6.4%, making a total 8.0% increase. The Southern California
Agency in the Sacramento Area was selected to participate in this program,
but the Hoopa and Central California Agencies were omitted. Even for the
Southern California Agency, 6.4% was hardly enough to alter radically
the present unbalance. Nevertheless we were informed by Mr. Conger that the
"equity adjustments" were "ill-received" and may not be continued.
It appears to us that the BIA already has the power to readjust its budget
increases to provide more equitable funding for California. According to
Mr. Finale, the Office of Management and Budget sets a target percentage
increase for the Department of Interior, which in turn adjusts the figure
upward or downward for the entities within its jurisdiction. Once its target
has been set by the Department, the BIA can, within statutory constraints,
allow different rates of increase to its Areas and their constituent
Agencies to offset inequities between them.
Thirdly, the BIA may contend, in justification of present funding levels, that
the relatively small land base of California Indians and the wide distribu-
tion of Indians in the "near-reservation" category entitles the Sacramento
Area to less program activity than is provided to Areas with more trust land
and sizable numbers of Indians living in close proximity to such lands.
To an extent this contention is a valid one. We have already referred to
allocations for forest protection and utilization in this regard. However,
the argument does not hold for the range of educational, community development,
and related funds provided by the BIA since the need for those funds is not
related to the possession of trust land but rather to the population to be
served. Indeed, because the treaties to which the California Indians and
Federal commissioners agreed in the mid-nineteenth century were never
278
[(onorable Sidney Yates
April 18, 1977
Page Four
ratified, trust lands in California are extremely small, and in most cases
insufficient, both in area and quality, to support large on-reservation
populations. It is grossly unfair to base fundinp on the size of trust lands
since non-ratification prevented establishment of large and more viable
reservations.
The BIA in determining funding levels should take properly into account the
reality of history which created the unique dispersion of California Indians
throughout non-trust lands. We note in this regard that, according to
Mr. Finale, the BIA continues to fund Oklahoma Indians living on now extinct
reservations in that State as if the abolished reservations were still
trust land.
In conclusion, we strongly believe that California Indian communities are not
now receiving their proper share of the funds allocated by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. California is underfunded not only in terms of total allo-
cations but also in terms of those programs for which a service population of
36,255 is clearly established. At the very minimum, California Indians she 'd
receive funding for such programs on a basis commensurate with their recoci.'zed
service population. The needs of California Indians are great and those
needs for services demand attention.
We urge the Subcommittee to seriously examine current BIA funding practices
as they relate to California Indians. We hope that you will see fit to take
some action with respect to this year's budget to assure adequate funding
for California Indians and that you will move to see that BIA allocation
policies are more equitable in the future.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or
need assistance with regard to resolution of this problem, please get in touch.
Sincerely,
Attachments
cc: Members of the Subcommittee
Arnold C. Sternberg
Director /
279
March 18, 1977
It aecms to me that Amarlcana have a tendency to want to aolve worl4
problem* but pay little a^^tention to pr obi erne exlatlng in their own
back yarda I
We have a Federal Law on the booka which haa integrated our achool
ayatem -- but why oh why -- ia the aegregatioa ayatem permitted to
atart in the Hayward Area? I cannot underatand why the citiseae and
the legialaturea are permitting the Chippewa I ndi ana to aet up a aegregated
akhool ayatem with our tax dollar a?
It appeara to me that we are going backwarda and permitting prejudicea
to exi at inatead of going forwarda by integrating and leaaenlng prejudicea t
It aeema immoral to perpetuate auch aeparati am with our tax dolkara. We
muat not make the aame miatakea aa our forefather a who really believed
the creation of reaervationa aol ved problema/ Thi a only created a feeling
of aeparati veneaa I ! How long muat future generationa beat their cheatain
"MIA CULPA" faahion and live with the guilt feelinga?? Let ua all
integrate - work for a living and auppotrt our government alike through
the tax dollar earned not begged 1 1 1
Sincerely
Roae Cammack
Rt 4 - Hayward, Wiacoaain
280
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
Washington, DC. 20230
April 22, 1977
Mr. Ernest L. Stevens
Director
American Indian Policy Review Commission
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S.W., Room 3158
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Ernie:
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments on the
tentative final report of the Commission. In this regard, we
enclose statements containing our comments on two chapters —
Numbers 6 and 7 — which, we feel, are of special interest to us.
We look forward to having the final report when it is published.
Sincejpaly,
■JER
Specif ilssistant
forAidiin Affairs
281
AIPRC PROPOSED FINAL REPORT
Chapter 6 - Federal Administration
The AIPRC has been charged with an important mission in Chapter 6 to assist
Indian people in participating in the services and programs of the Federal
Government to the fullest extent possible. The EDA Indian Desk shares this
concern and offers the following summary comments to help make a good report
better:
Clearly, this chapter on Federal Administration reflects the dedicated
efforts of many hands. Perhaps some consideration should be given to
editing for brevity, style, tone, and balance to bring out the most important
findings and recommendations, particularly when much of the material is also
discussed in other AIPRC reports.
Some thought should be given to reassessing the organization of this Chapter
consisting of seven parts covering 137 pages. Seventy-nine percent of
Chapter 6 discusses essentially four Federal agencies (BIA/DOI; IHS/DHEW,
and ONAP/DHEW) included in Part V on Federal Delivery Systems and 72 percent
of this part discusses only BIA. There are many other Federal agencies
offering vital programs to Indians in categorical and block grants, procure-
ment and contracting, and so forth that may well be included consistent
with the intent of this chapter.
While the findings of this chapter disclose some revealing issues regarding
Federal policy, program management, organization, budgeting, and standards,
we note that there appears to be no consistently applied methodology in
looking at each Federal agency and program. This is important as Federal
administrative requirements often vary with the type of program.
Part V, item 6, discusses Federal technical assistance to Indians. While we
agree that this is an important program area, in which EDA also participates,
we question why technical assistance is singled out as a specific program area
for review, particularly when a small percentage of the Federal dollar is
expended in this area. We feel this area should be part of the discussion
on BIA in Chapter 6 since BIA is the principal provider of technical assistance.
Part V, item 7, discusses access to Federal program information and the
difficulty tribes have experienced to obtain this information. We agree that
access to information on Federal domestic assistance programs is important
for all Indian tribes, but note that much of this problem is alleviated as
EDA-funded tribal planners gather Federal program information and perform
Federal, State, and local government coordination activities as required as
part of their responsibilities for the tribes they serve.
282
Part VI, B, Indian Contracting Preference, discusses the use of Federal
contracting and procurement and to enhance Indian economic development and
promote Indian enterprises. We do not agree that limited success in the
field of Indian management and economic development is due to the failure of
Federal agencies to implement PL 93-638, at least as it applies to EDA.
We agree that Indian preference in contracting merits consideration, but
wish to note that successful tribal enterprises, providing employment and
income to the tribe, are found only where sound management and business
practices are also employed and freely supported by the tribe. Accordingly,
contracting may be an alternative to enhance Indian economic developement
and promote Indian enterprises but has no foundation as a reason for the
limited progress among American Indians as Part VI, B, implies.
283
AIPRC PROPOSED FINAL REPORT
Chapter 7 - Economic Development
Since the greater part of the chapter Is devoted to protection and development
of natural resources. It would seem more appropriate that the title of the
chapter reflect that emphasis. There are a few, short glimpses of economic
development In senses of that term, but a great deal more analysis should be
presented to carry a chapter on that subject. It might have been appropriate
to devote an additional chapter to that subject.
The general organization of the chapter, we found, was haphazard, with the
presentation taking twists and turns that cause the reader to loose the Impact
of what Is being said. Part I, for example. Is purported to be a Summary of
Major Findings. It Is neither a summary nor does It present only major
findings. It contains 67 separate, unorganized statements, all of which are
scattered throughout the text.
Much of the discussion and many of the findings are not backed up by concrete
facts and analysis. For example, the recommendations on manpower development
start with nine "Congress should enact legislation." These recommendations
do not identify present laws that could be amended; do not set priorities; do
not suggest funding levels; and do not provide a time table for implementation.
While the study presents what are perceived to be needed and desired changes
In the tools available for economic development of Indian areas, it fails to a
large extent to even recognize that there are built-in barriers to such
development. We feel it must be recognized and accounted for that tribal
policies of 100 percent Indian ownership will restrict available capital
resources and management expertise. This is not to say that Indian ownership
is bad. It is not. But the study should recognize this point. Further, the
lack of continuity in tribal development policies brought about by frequent
changes in tribal administration is another barrier that must be recognized.
Planning and Development Strategies :
Certainly a study examining the need for, and recommending ways to accomplish,
economic development, must list planning very close to the top. The chapter
makes only passing reference to this need. Similarly omitted is the need for
long-range development strategies for local Indian communities to make them
better places in which to live.
284
Commercial Development
One of the very pressing needs, generally, in Indian country is that for
commercial development , yet the study makes only a passing reference to
the lack of goods and services on reservations with no recommendation on
improving this situation. In this same category, but converse in nature, is
the marketing of Indian products and resources off reservation. The study
should recognize that many tribes do not have the knowledge and skills to
exploit markets for maximum economic and social impact and that programs
should be designed to meet these needs.
Indian Control
Indians should seek self reliance and self government. At the same time,
however, they must accept and assume broad ranging responsibilities. We
agree that a Federal mandate should be designed to relieve Indians from Federal
dependency, but the study fails to recommend in concrete terms the parameters
of such a mandate. Indians should formulate and control their own economic
development; they should exercise full control over their own resources.
However, the study again, either by design or omission, falls to consider in
any depth the full ramifications of these points. No mention is made of
Indians using their own funds in economic development ; no mention is made of
the possible efficacy of Indians becoming tax payers — taxes, for example,
that tribal members pay into tribal coffers. In another vein, the study
points out that Federal economic development programs foster private
enterprises that are foreign to traditional Indian ways. Perhaps some
Federal programs do just this; however, since some tribes prefer this type of
development, the Indians, themselves, should make the determinations and
the programs should be designed to react to such determinations.
Water
The section on water resources is disappointingly scanty. It deals principally
with the Winters Doctrine, which established water rights granted by both
treaties and executive orders. With both water and land being the most
crucial issues in Indian country today, a great deal more coverage should be
provided in both these areas as to the impact they have on the full range of
economic development.
Land
The study quite properly points out the very serious problem of fractionated
land ownership. This is a major drawback to future development of Indian
lands and it would seem that a more thorough analysis of the problem and
suggested solutions would have been presented. Additionally, the study gives
the impression to the uninitiated reader that now that the land in Indian
285
ovmership has been reduced from 166 million acres to 52 million acres, the
present land is submarginal. This statement should be balanced by a showing
of economic development potential of these lands.
Energy Resources
This subject is especially important today in light of increasing energy needs.
It has, however, been given broad-brush treatment in Jthe study, where specifics
should be examined. Of course, Indian interests must be protected but at the
same time, economic needs of tribes must be met. Consequently, the study
should examine closely and recommend broadly Federal policy in the development
of tribal energy resources.
Timber Resources
That timber resources appear not to have been managed in the most desirable
fashion is clearly spelled out in the study. What is not spelled out so
clearly, however, is how to better manage and at the same time preserve the
trust of caring for another's property without being continually liable for
failure to act in the best interest of the property owners. The study falls
short in making concrete recommendations in this respect.
Information Bank
A clear need in economic development appears to us to be that of data on
population, labor force, employment, unemployment, and income. At present
there are no truly satisfactory sources for this information and the study
does not recognize this need.
Summary
While there are shortcomings in the study as noted above, overall it appears
that the study does make many good points. If there can be any one general
criticism, it would be that the study lacks balance. Broad statements are
made without adequate supporting evidence. Some Federal programs are bad —
ergo, all are indicted. Some tribes and individual Indians perceive their
needs to be along given lines, hence, all tribes and all Indians have the
same needs. These needs are not the same for all and they cannot be
generalized. This factor, alone, calls for the analysis of, and provision
for, a multiplicity of routes to follow in attaining the full potential for
the economic development of Indian lands and people.
286
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Statc Omcz Building Haktfou>, CoHntcnarr 06115
INDIAN AFFAIRS COUNCIL - ROOM 248
April 21, 19r7
Senator James S. Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, SW
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk:
I vjish to offer the following corrections to statements made in the
tentative final report of the American Indian Policy Review Comnission.
On pages >-5, a statement appears that the Mohegan tribe has no "official
recognized relationship" with the state in vrtiich they reside, viz.,
Connecticut. This is not correct; the Mohegan tribe is one of the five
indigenous Connecticut tribes recognized under sections 47-59b and 47-65
of the Connecticut General Statutes.- Although they do not have a reservation
today. State law provides for and they have a representative on the
Connecticut Indian Affairs Council.
Concerning the information chart on pages 11-13 ff • The Schaghticoke
reservation is located in the town of Kent, Litchfield County, vrtiile the
Eastern' Pequot reservation is located in the town of North Stonington, New
London Gounty.
If you have any questions about ray comments please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
endan S. /Keleher
Indian Affairs Coordinator
(203) 566-7026
287
i^ril 2S, 1977
Ernest L. Stevens, Director
Aaerican Indian Policy Review Coimnission
Congress of the United States
Hoiise Office Building Annex N. 2
2d and D. Streets, S.W.
Washington. D. C. 20S15
Dear Ernie:
Enclosed herewith are the comments and recommendations of the Creek Nation
to the Final Report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Our
staff has attempted to consume the entirety of the proposed final report,
analyze its content and to compile comments and reconniendations which we
feel are significant to Indian people as a whole.
It has been a great pleasure to have participated in the review of the proposed
final report. If your office should have any questions regarding the attached,
please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Claude A. Cox
Principal Chief
'^,a MtiM, ^:jj '^i^iW^gm^ - j&^ 7S ./ S&i^ss - 0t C 3Uhm - Om^ OUJLm. 7***T - HI rst^oo
93-440 O - 78 - 20
288
FINAL AIPRC REPORT
The Formative Years: Policy Development through 1871
There are several different approaches that can be taken to the study of
Native American history. Curiously, this one has chosen to leave out
the inadequate description that is needed through the Colonial period
from 1607 to 1776 or indeed until 1783. A more detailed discussion of
the environment from which the United States and the Indian nations
began co-existence is needed to demonstrate the historical relationships
involved. The historical section leaves out a discussion of the concept
of Colonialism that is very necessary for a study of the United States
and Indian relations. The settlement of North America did not happen
in vacuum. It happened as a result of the Colonial policy of Great
Britian, France, Spain and Holland and it was a policy followed there-
after of unlimited immigration which allowed these colonial states to
support themselves. This is a poor issue in the study of Indian history.
The tribal governments have to be viewed in the context of the span that
has existed in the process of federation which occurred throughout
the Atlantic Seaboard and occurred again and again inside the interior
of the continent. It is something that has to be viewed as a phenomenon.
In fact, various philosophical arguments concerning the Indian contribu-
tions, both to the world's conception of a federal system of government,
and to the world's conception of democracy and limited government. We
must remember that the culture was pointed to as example of government
by consent, and is an example of limited government in claims which justi-
fied originally a serious democracy. We've got to remember that models
from Tribal Governments were used in putting together many of the American
state documents; otherwise, as far as details go and as far as the text
of the Historical Chapter, it is very well done and deserves high praise.
There are a couple of small things that I think are important. On page
1-7 the report discusses, at the very bottom of the page the very last
line, the proposals for organizing "Indian Territory". These continue
to surface from time to time. The tribal nations remain separate and
unequal. I think that it is important to know at this point that the
reconstruction treaty wherein the United States received concessions
from the Five Civilized Tribes under the theory of their conquerment
although all tribes had split during the war and that no tribe remained
united. The United States imposed a general council of the Indian
Territory and provisions for that council were written into the Treaty
of the Five Civilized Tribes in 1867. Furthermore, tribes which were
removed from areas in other parts of the midwest and were relocated
in Oklahoma, many of them had it written into their treaty as a result
of coming to live in Oklahoma. That they would be allowed such repre-
sentation were also often written into great detail. Congress appropriated
289
funds for this from time to time and the council met on a regular
basis. TTie council has never been repealed and is a very important
historical institution.
Another concept which remains to be discussed in the earlier sections
of the report. Section 1 5 2, is the treatment of the Indian Governments
as Nations in several other important senses. The first of these is that
when the Five Civilized Tribes were placed in the Indian Territory under
their removal treaties they were placed in such a situation that they
indeed existed as border states between what was considered Federal
Territory and what was considered the Territory of the Government of
Mexico. This clearly indicates that the United States felt the Tribe
had some attributes of sovereignty to be placed on the Spanish frontier.
Of course, one of the Tribal Towns of the Creek Nation migrated from
the United States into what was Mexican Territory and later became a
reservation of its own in Texas.
The other important factor concerning the treatment of the Tribes as
nations is the United States did not intervene in the civil wars of the
Five Civilized Tribes. Until the erection of the Territory, and State
of Oklahoma, the United States in no way ever intervened in a civil
war of any of the Five Civilized Tribes, notably in the Creek Nation.
It is important to know that in the Civil War itself, both United
States and Confederate States were very anxious for the loyalty of the
Indian Nations and they treated them as Nations. The region where they
were, geographically, was of some great political power. This is why
the tribes were torn assionder, they were given promises from the United
States and the Confederate States. This can be evidenced by the
Confederate Treaties involved, and also by historical research of the
time; at the end of the war the United States promises were not kept
but rather very harsh reconstruction was forced upon the tribes. The
offer of the confederate treaties also included offers of representation
in the Confederate legislature.
Also in the historical perspective, we must not forget trade patterns.
These are also very definitive in the study of the United States-Indian
relations and its history. The tribes traded with each other and they
traded across long distances they migrated. Many tribes were migratory
in one long movement and still other tribes were migratory in a sense
that they wandered in no particular direction, but they treated each
other always as a Nation able to co-exist upon the land or able to
determine the limits of the lack of such co-existing. They always
treated each other as Nations.
It is only this question of historical perspective that I want to insert
at this time and I believe that on the whole. Chapter I, II and III are
excellently conceived, developed and written and other than a few
philosophical holes in them, I believe that they are an excellent
presentation for the American Indian. Chapter IV, we believe, the
priority should be given a statement and policy describing the trust
responsibility and we favored the middle ground taken by the position
which is a partial description of a very general concept of trust
290
responsibility. In support of the trust responsibility and statement
of policy we would also like to give our support to the recommendations
for a Indian Trust Rights Impact Statement. The section which favors
legal representation for the Indians is well developed in good detail
and seems to protect the rights of the tribes and the right of the
individuals and protect the tribes for the first time against the
inherent conflicts of interests involved in most federal departments
and their administration.
In Chapter V of Tribal Government we support the recommendation that the
support and development of Tribal Government should be a long-term
objective of Federal Indian Policy. It's been reversed, rather, which
has been the policy of the federal government to this point. We support
the recommendation that Congress take no legislative action in relation
to tribal jurisdiction over non- Indians. But in future questions
relating to tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians, where jurisdiction is
being retroceded. Congress should neither limit that jurisdiction to
solely over Indians and it should commensurate with such plans of concurrent
jurisdiction as it could be worked out between the tribe and the state.
Chapter V is very well developed, and as a whole, looks like one of the
most comprehensive chapters and one of the easiest to comment on. I
can whole heartedly support every recommendation under the chapter on
Tribal Government with one single exception. Because of the discussion
in Chapter 12 concerning the special circumstances of Oklahoma I believe
that it is necessary that at some point in here, perhaps that in a
separate recommendation, reference should be made to these same principles
of retrocession being applied to the Indian Tribes of Oklahoma at their
options; I believe that enough narrative should be inserted into the
text of the report in Chapter V to report on the possibilities of
litigation and legislation regarding the Oklahoma Tribes so that
legislation is not forced upon those tribes who do not want it so that
the long road of litigation is not forced upon those tribes to whom it
would not help. Retrocession in Oklahoma is necessary and is a proper
topic of Chapter V.
I heartily support the recommendations in Chapter VI on Federal
Administration. They are detailed and comprehensive in nature and
deal with a great many subjects, only one of which I wish to expand
upon. I do support part of the recommendation saying that Congress should
mandate the Bureau of Indian Affairs through the independent Indian
agency to make available to all Indian Tribes copies of all operations
and procedures manuals used by the Indian agency in its administration
of Indian Affairs. However, the second half of the recommendation does
not go far enough. Whereas, it states that Congress further mandates
the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the independent Indian agencies to make
available to all Indian tribes a copy of Title 25 of the United States
Code, it should read, to locate in all agencies or sub-agencies a
complete and up-to-date copy of the United States Code annotated and
a complete copy of the Code of Federal Regulations, and two appropriate
copies of Public Laws of the United States and of the Federal Registers.
291
Regarding Chapter VI we most importantly, support the recommendations
to create an independent agency for Indian Affairs and that it be composed
of the appropriate function within the Federal Government starting with
the cores of Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service and
Department of Interior and Justice legal staffs and moving on to other
appropriate programs and functions.
Moving to Chapter VII we can also give our whole hearted support for this
section of this report, overall, it is developed well and many of the
concepts are well outlined except for a few minor things which we would
like to refer to below. There is one additional concept which we'd like
to recommend inclusion. This would be the finding that the Federal
Government has funded comprehensive planning for the Indian Tribes, yet
the Tribes find themselves faced with a system which is not geared to
implementing the comprehensive plan it is geared toward federal grants-
manship. The subsequent recommendation which Congress devise the
appropriate review process for congressional consideration of comprehensive
plan implementation.
Basically I agree with the report; however, in some areas it does not
go far enough. These will be dealt with in Section II of this report.
The area that seems to be lacking from the report is long term
consistancy in the Economic Development of Indian Country. Perhaps some
type of trust council, elected from Indian Country, by Indians for
long term (20 years) with Indian policy and effect review and comment
authority over all legislation, executive policies, and judicial activities.
Another area which was omitted is any provision for the modification ^
of all legislative activity which has its real effect ramifications
which deter the economic development of Indian country.
Comments on various sections of the report are as follows:
Page 7-1 - 7th. paragraph - This statement is not necessarily so.
Page 7-8 - 4th paragraph - This statement is a good point.
Page 7-10- 2nd paragraph - Item 7 - Good point.
Page 7-13- Item 4 - Interest rate should be tied to some varying scale
or escalator such as the prime interest rate.
Page 7-13- Item 5 - All trust monies invested by various agencies
should have 100% protection.
Page 7-13- 2nd paragraph - concerning bond issues excellent point and
good tool for funding hardware projects.
Page 7-18- 3rd paragraph - The entire paragraph boils down to
Comprehensive Planning.
Page 7-36 Last paragraph - Added to the entire section should be an
evaluation of the following possibilities
for tribal government use:
1. Revised inheritance laws
2. Tribal power of eminent domain
3. Land use development plans
4. Zoning and development regulations
5. Tribal condemnation of land
6. Extraterritorial jurisdiction for
development controls.
292
Page 7-42- Pollution of surface and underground water has an effect
on water use in Indian Country and should be investigated.
Page 7-57- An addition to this section should be consideration of
timber by-products and the use of non-millable or scrub
timber.
Page 7-67- This section should include an investigation of the effects
of 200 mile fishing boundaries.
Page 7-85- Holding funds in tribal trust is not in efficient
utilization of money. Using trust money as leverage for
capital investment is a better utilization of trust money.
Page 7-90- Item 5 - All trust monies invested by Federal agencies should
carry a 100% insurance factor.
Editorial changes are as follows:
Page 7-7 - 1st sentence last paragraph - apparantly a word is left out
of the first sentence.
Page 7-9 - Element line - word misspelled.
Page 7-39 - Second paragraph, fifth line, word misspelled.
Page 7-55 - Sixth line- a better phrase for "forward linkages" is
"vertical integration".
Page 7-64- Last sentence is incomplete.
Page 7-77 - Sixteenth line - word misspelled.
One minor point would be the second recommendation regarding the
availability of investment capitol in Chapter VII. One of the directions
that Congress is suggested to give to the BIA is to consider applying
the average daily balance concept just using a consumer credit operation
to provide an interest rate for rapidly changing balances in some Indian
Trust Funds as opposed to non-payment of interest. We would like to
note that we oppose the non-payment interest. Any methods of computing
interest is preferrable. One method as utilized by banking institutions
as in our region is the transaction is only dated on the 5th day or on
10, 15, 20,25th or 30th. The interest is thus computed on those days,
so there is not doubt as to the balance at any given moment.
Chapter VIII concerning the Social Services, it is one of the most
important chapters of the entire report.
Social Services are the essence of the government as Western Society
has come to understand it. Making proper provisions for the general
welfare of our people is a necessary part of the role of the Indian
Tribe. As a service delivery mechanism an Indian Tribe can truly serve
the best interest of government both for its own people and for the
role of federal trusteeship. Subjected to proper audit requirements
and proper programming administrative requirements, Indian tribes are
unequivocally the best mechanism for delivery of services to their
tribal population and to their reservations. In many ways this area
is going to be important to the future of Indian Tribes all across the
country.
293
In accordance with the findings of the AIPRC, there also exist within
the Creek Nation a number of agencies authorized to provide welfare
services to the Indian population. As is also the trend on the national
level, many Indian people do not receive the full benefit of the various
programs. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of many Indians
within the Creek Nation to apply for welfare services provided by the
Department of Institutions, Social and Rehabilitative Services; the
State agency charged with the delivery of such services in Oklahoma.
In addition, there has been no recognizable effort on the part of this
agency to work through tribal entities to identify and serve the Indian
people in need of assistance.
It is agreed, as we stated in the AIPRC Report, that mechanism must be
developed by which the Indian people will share in the assistance to which
all people are entitled. These mechanism must be developed and implemented
with input and assistance for tribal governments with sanctions against
those agencies refusing to cooperate in the attempts to increase needed
services to Indians.
The other recommendations made in the AIPRC Report are acceptable.
The child placement situation within the Creek Nation is such that
concurrance with the following recommendations is made;
a) That the removal of Creek children from their homes, culture and
society be halted.
b) Federal funds be made available to tribal governments for the
development of Indian foster care home and institutions.
c) Statistical information concerning the present system be gathered.
d) Congress must address the problems and issues of Indian child
placement.
As with other social service areas, it is imperative that tribal
governments provide input into the development of a new system, and
also be considered as the primary services provider with the acquisition
of adequate funds and expertise.
In our health area, even though many of the statistics and conditions
outlined in AIPRC Report primarily described the health situation
on reservations, the health problems facing the Indian people within
the Creek Nation are equally severe.
The recommendations made in the AIPRC Report that referenced reservations
must be revised to include catchment areas served by tribal governments
similar in status to the Creek Nation. Since the Creek Nation is presently
implementing an ambulance, mobile clinic, and emergency and inpatient
facility system for the pupulation of the Creek Nation, it is important
for future development that Oklahoma Indian Nations be specifically
included.
294
TTie special trust relationship between Indian tribes and the Federal
Government has created a responsibility for the Federal Government
to educate Indian people, but due to the fact that the Constitution
of the United States delegates the responsibility of education to the
states, a void has been created by the lack of recognition by states
of Indian tribes and their educational needs. A conflict has been
created when the States will not recognize Indian tribes and their
educational needs.
1) It is necessary that agencies be established at the federal level
to carry out the responsibilities of providing technical assistance
to Indian tribes. For example an agency to accredit educational
systems of Indian tribes.
2) Federal Funding for development of tribal education system.
The Creek Nation can whole heartedly support the recommendations in
Chapter IX on Off- Reservation Indians.
The delivery of services to Off-Reservation Indians is consistant with
the federal obligation to all Indians. Urban Indian services are
necessary for the future of the Indian people and in no way does the
Creek Nation want to argue against Urban Indian funds and Urban Indian
centers, however, we would appreciate one small qualifier being inserted
within the recommendation. The Congress should take notice, legislative
notice, of the unique situation of urban areas existing with the reservation
boundaries, and in its notice Congress should uphold the policy that such
urban areas are within the jurisdiction of the tribes and therefore
the primary vehicle with services delivery is the tribe. The Creek Nation
supports the recommendations of Chapter X to restore full federal
recognition to all terminated tribes. In principle, the Creek Nation
recognizes the necessity of giving proper federal recognition to many
heretofore unrecognized tribes, we believe that the policy of recogni-
tion is too lax and will cause fraud and the resulting decrease of
services to heretofore recognized tribes. In the unrecognized tribes
area there is a very serious question as to how the historical accidents
of separated bands of tribes shall be treated. We believe that the problem
of separated bands should have priority over completely unrecognized tribes,
however, we also believe that heretofore unrecognized bands should be
dealt with in coordination with the tribe involved. If you will use
the report itself as reference and use the chart of available information
on non-federally recognized Indian tribes at the end of Chapter XI, you
will notice that in Alabama it has listed the Creek Nation East of the
Mississippi, in Florida it has listed the Appalachicola Tribe which
claims treaties rights without reference to the fact that the Appalachicola
Tribe was the Tribal Town of the Creek Nation. In Florida, it also
listed as the lower Creek Tribe of East of the Mississippi. In Georgia
there is listed two groups who claim to be the Creek Nation East of the
Mississippi. So here we can plainly see that there are six organizations
claiming to be the Creek Nation East of the Mississippi, or some component
thereof. These are separated bands, they are products of bloody, and
bitter removal and these people that are Indians deserve to have their
rights protected. But only in a manner upholding finest traditions of
the federal relationships and not in some hap-hazard manner that's going
295
to recognize some illegitimate so called tribal government.
In Chapter XII, it would be inappropriate to comment on the special
circumstances in Alaska and California, so my attention will be
concentrated on the special circumstemces in Oklahoma. On page 12-39 where
it talks of the jurisdiction of government of all persons and property
of the Choctaw Nation and that no part of the land granted them shall
ever be embraced in any territory or state and it says that similar
provisions may be found in the removal treaties of each of the tribes.
It must also be noted that these guarantees have never been litigated
and that the meaning of the terms at the time were a part of the consi-
deration for a contract between the Tribe and the United States and
this consideration has never been dealt with by a court of law.
On page 12-40 where it discusses the 1867, not 1866, treaties concluded
by each tribe in the civil war, the five tribes did not fight the
confederacy during the Civil War. In fact, the Seminole in no way ever
sided with the confederacy in the Civil War, the Creeks and Cherokees
and to a lesser degree the Choctaws and the Chickasaws were all split
in different factions, did different things, and because of the turmoil
in Indian Territory at the time it is impossible to tell who was siding
with whom. The 1867 Treaty also contained a promise by the Tribe that
the United States Congress would be able to exercise the general
jurisdiction over the tribe for the benefit of the tribe and that tribe
would be able to maintain their form of self-government and their right
of self-government.
In the following section of the removal of Midwestern Tribes, it is
important to note that a general council of the Indian Territory was estab-
lished in the reconstruction treaties of the five tribes and was written
into several if not most, in fact if not all, of the treaties of the
Western plains tribes and the midwestem and southern plains tribes
that were moved into Oklahoma. The staff of the commission should
survey these treaties and find out how many of them included general
council of the Indian Territory and should also give history of the
appropriations which Congress gave to fiond this and should cite exsimples
from Senate reports and House reports with or without federal appropria-
tions, however, this council continued to function for some time.
The discussion beginning on page 12-48 and concluding on page 12-50 dis-
cussing the dismantling of the Five Civilized Tribes and the effective
state jurisdiction is wholly inadequate. In error the section has done
an inconclusive legal analysis on the extent of the state jurisdiction.
Therefore, attached for the consideration of the commission is the
memorandum written under the contract to the Creek Nation and the
judicial and legislative decision of importance are also attached along
with it.
On page 12-59 the commission uses the definition of Part C, Section 1151
of Title 18 United States Code as being applicable to Eastern Oklahoma.
The commission should re-examine this, on the other hand, the Title 18,
296
Section 1151, Parts A, B, and C are all applicable to Eastern Oklahoma
in different senses and to narrow the construction of this nature is
not going to help the tribes in Eastern Oklahoma. The recommendation
supporting the reservation status for the Eastern Oklahoma Tribes
should affect the legal status of the tribe in addition to making the
tribes eligible for certain federal domestic systems programs.
The section on Trust Lands from page 12-67 through page 12-69 does
not even discuss the situation of the Five Civilized Tribes. All
the statistics given are applicable only to Western Oklahoma, although
there is some application to Eastern Oklahoma.
The section on Indians on page 12-70 through page 12-71 is hardly a
good discussion on water rights at all, in fact it uses the discussion
of the Choctaws, Cherokees, Chickasaws' suit against the State of
Oklahoma as an example of water rights, while the suit in fact dealt
with only title to lands and did not mention water in any way or
in any form.
Over all, however, the Creek Nation can support Chapter 12, in its
recommendations concerning the tribes of Oklahoma in general and the
Five Civilized Tribes, and the Creek Nation in particular. We hope
that this provides an atmosphere of independent retrocession on the
part of each tribe so that no tribe feels bound to any other.
It is very important to point out that this would not infringe on the
treaty of any of the tribes involved. Any tribes which would rather
not follow the process of retrocession but instead would rather precede
with litigation in a court of law would be entitled to do so, and would
be able to procede in that manner without it infringing upon its own
rights.
In Chapter 1 3, the Creek Nation support the recommendations given
concerning the National awareness toward the Indian issues, alternative
elective bodies representing National Indian interests, consolidation
revision of codification of Federal Indian Law in creation of Native
American Studies Division in the Library of Congress.
297
We recxignize that you may not be able to thoroughly read and evaluate all parts
of this Report within the time allowed for ooiment. However, in order to
include your catments in our Final Report, this questionnaire must be conpleted
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than April 16, 1977.
Our Final Report must be corpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Conmission approval,
NAME Claude A. Cox, Principal Chief ADDRESS P.O.Box 1114
TRIBE/ORGANIZATION Creek Nation Okmulgee, OK 74447
A. PLEASE CIRCU: ONE TO INDICATE TOUR IDENTriY AS :
( Tribal Chairman ) Tribal Governing Body Individual Indian
Member of Congress Organizational Governing Board
State Official Private Citizen
PLEASE EVALUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKING THE BLANK WHICH MOOT NEARLY
REPRESENTS YOUR OPINION.
The report as a whole is
I. History
II. Legal Concepts
III. Conditions
IV. Federal- Indian Relations
V. Tribal Government
VI. Federal Administration
VII. Economic Development
VIII. Social Services
IX. Off-Reservation
X. Terminated Indians
XI. Non-Recognized Indians
XII. Special Prctolem Areas
XIII. General
298
C. HAVING READ THE REXXMIEMDftTIOMS AT THE HO OF EACH SEXTIOM, Pl£ftSE AtgtCR
THE FOUXWIMG QUEgTIONS .
1) Which recxranendations should be given priority statxis? Why?
See attached comments and recommendations
2) Are there recarmendations with vrtiich you disagree? Why?
See attached comments and recommendations
3) Are there reoonmendations you vgould like to have added?
See attached comments and recommendations
4) Do you feel the content of the report provides an accurate, useful
picture of the situation?
See attached comments and recommendations
5) Do you have any additional catments?
See attached comments and recommendations
F. SPACE IS PROVIDED CN THE PQLIOWING PACES FOR YOUR SPECIFIC RBCCMlENnATIONS.
299
TRIBE/ORGANIZATICN
REXXM1ENDATICNS
Qiapter ( ) Page ( ) Paragraph ( )
In the section beginning with the words "
," it is suggested that the following addition.
deleticn or change in wording be made, or the following concept expressed
differently :
See attached comments and recommendations
300
LAW OFFICES
DELLWO, RUDOLF & SCHROEDER, P.S.
ROBERT D. DELLWO
KERMIT M. RUDOLF
RICHARD J. SCHROEDER
TERRY W. MARTIN
TERRY T. GRANT
May 4, 1977
Senator James Abourezk, Chairman
Select Committee on Indian Affairs
Direksen Office Building, Room 1105
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Report of Indian Policy Review Commission
Dear Senator Abourezk:
As you may recall, we represent several Tribes (Spokane and Kalispel
Tribes of Washington and the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho) and have your
letter of April 8, 1977 asking for our comments on the reports of the
Indian Policy Review Commission. Of primary importance at this time is
the volume entitled "Tentative Final Report" which includes the
"Dissenting Views" of Congressman Meeds.
I have attended several regional meetings where this tentative final
report was discussed and to say that the Indian delegates were dismayed
by Congressman Meeds' "Dissenting Views" is an understatement. The
general reaction of everyone present at each of these meetings was
his "Views," coming as they do at the end of the report, practically
nullify the entire report. Unanswered, it would seem that his "Views"
as expressed brings to naught the entire process of the Review Commission
and the Task Forces.
Every Tribal Attorney I know has been asked to frame some kind of reply
but each has shrunk from this task because, as a practical matter, it
would be of doubtful expediency for any tribal lawyer to file an
"answering brief." The consensus of everyone is that that task almost
from necessity must fall on you, the Chairman. To be persuasive and of
any real effect in neutralizing the content and thrust of Congressman
Meeds' "Views" a counter draft from you as Chairman should appear.
Congressman Meeds, on page iv of his "Views," acknowledges that he
retained attorney Frederick J. Martone of the Arizona bar to assist him
in his critique. What resulted was a legal brief by the Martone law
firm, a kind of brief we as practicing lawyers would expect to receive
from opposing counsel in a tribal tax or water rights case. It is
highly partisan and adversary and cries out for a reply. Might we
suggest that you retain the assistance of legal counsel to in effect
prepare a reply brief which you, as Chairman, could adapt in your
reply or "Answering Views."
301
Senator James Abourezk May 4, 1977
Congressman Meeds begins by stating that it had been hoped that "Congress
would have before it an objective statement, etc." He then describes
the "majority" report as being "one-sided advocacy in favor of American
Indian Tribes."
Assuming Congressman Meeds is correct in his description summarized
above, one would think that he would have made a special effort himself
to hew in the direction of "objectivity" and would not have filed what
everyone versed in Indian law will recognize as an extremely biased,
one-sided dissenting reply. He has made the very mistake he accuses the
Task Forces of.
Tribes are taken by surprise over Congressman Meeds' expectations of
the Task Forces as being somehow "neutral and objective." He should know
better than anyone else that there was not the slightest pretense of
staffing the Task Forces with neutral people. Everyone was an Indian
leader or well-known advocate of Indian causes. They were, in truth,
expected to be Indian and Tribal advocates.
The hearings I attended were impartially and well conducted. To have
expected true neutrality, however, would have been expecting the
impossible. If the Commission expected such, it should have so appointed
the Task Force representatives, balancing them as arbitrators, one
against the other. This was not done because neutrality was not intended
or expected. Rather, what was expected was the gathering of facts and
arguments to express and document the Tribal and Indian views. It was
the job of the Commission itself to take this material and forge a
realistic final document properly placed in the spectrum of reality.
Congressman Meeds' legal brief, called "Dissenting Views," poses a
serious problem for the various Tribes and participants in the Review
Commission. It is a copious 100-page brief in which are interspersed
his editorialized conclusions and comments. Without those comments,
it is a brief almost identical to briefs from State taxing agencies and
others involved in litigation against Indian Tribes. For example, I am
just finishing our Reply Brief in the Spokane Tribe's Chamokane water
rights case against the State of Washington. I have before me the
briefs of the State of Washington. They cite many of the cases cited
by Congressman Meeds. In comparison to the Meeds brief, they would be
considered moderate. They do not leap to the same extreme conclusions
from the cited cases. Their stated positions are comparatively profes-
sional and detached.
To cope with the Meeds' brief, replete as it is with unsupported con-
clusionary statements, would require someone such as yourself, backed
by a professional attorney's brief answering Congressman Meeds' basic
points one by one.
How does one deal with Congressman Meeds' conclusion wherein he states
with conviction that the Report "is neither legally nor historically
accurate . . . and springs from initial erroneous conclusions re
sovereignty, jurisdiction and trust responsibility?"
302
Senator James Abourezk May 4, 1977
Yet, in analyzing his brief, we find his own conclusions questionable.
We find a one-sided lawyer's handpicking of cases and dicta to fit a
preconceived pattern of legal thought.
Let us take one example:
We find on page 2 his statement regarding Indian Sovereignty that "They
are not sovereign." He then follows this thread to his conclusion
that the Tribes have only such sovereign governmental powers as Congress
allows them to have and "A tribe's power is limited to governing the
internal affairs of its members ..." And he says on page 5: "...
the extent American Indian Tribes are permitted to exist as political
units at all ... is by virtue of the laws of the United States and
not any inherent right to government, either of themselves or of others."
This "put down" to tribal governmental powers permeates the whole
treatise.
Congressman Meeds' "Views" make only oblique, disparaging references to
that classic statement of Indian sovereignty powers found on page 122
of Felix Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law:
Perhaps the most basic principle of all Indian law supported
by a host of decisions hereinafter analyzed, is the principle
that those powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe
are not, in general, delegated powers granted by express acts
of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty
which has never been extinguished. Each Indian tribe begins its
relationship with the Federal Government as a sovereign power,
recognized as such in treaty and legislation. The powers of
sovereignty have been limited from time to time by special
treaties and laws designed to take from the Indian tribes control
of matters which, in the judgment of Congress, these tribes could
no longer be safely permitted to handle. The statutes of Congress ,
then, must be examined to determine the limitations of tribal
sovereignty rather than to determine its sources or its posTtive
contentT what is not expressly limited remains within the domain
of tribal sovereignty.
The acts of Congress which appear to limit the powers of an
Indian Tribe are not to be unduly extended by doubtful inference.
Cohen then went on to say on page 123:
The whole course of judicial decision on the nature of Indian
tribal powers is marked by adherence to three fundamental
principles: (1) An Indian tribe possesses, in the first instance,
all the powers of any sovereign state. (2) Conquest renders the
tribe subject to the legislative power of the United States and,
in substance, terminates the external powers of sovereignty of the
tribe , e.g. its power to enter into treaties with foreign nations.
303
Senator James Abourezk May 4, 1977
but does not by itself affect the internal sovereignty of the
tribe, i.e., its powers of local self-government. (3) These
powers are subject to qualification by treaties and by express
legislation of Congress, but, save as thus expressly qualified,
full powers of internal sovereignty are vested in the Indian
Tribes and in their duly constituted organs of government.
What Cohen stated to be the law in 1940 is the law today. Since then
almost every court case dealing with tribal governing powers has quoted
and affirmed these classic definitions.
They are ignored in the "Dissenting Views."
The writer has before him some of the well-circulated diatribes against
Tribal rights and sovereignty. Some of them, as you know, originated
out of MOD (Montanans Opposed to Discrimination) based in Poison, Montana.
But have you seen ARE WE GIVING AMERICA BACK TO THE INDIANS that has no
named author but is circulated by an anti-Indian organization described
as the Interstate Congress for Equal Rights and Responsibilities? These
diatribes and attacks remind one of the anti-Semitic literature so
prevalent a decade ago or of the Birch Society attacks on liberals.
Stated in plausible language from an alleged patriotic rostrum, they are
indeed scurrilous attacks against Tribes and Indians.
We find in that literature sentences that read very much like some of
Congressman Meeds' "Dissenting Views." Let's read a few:
Page 8: "... the Court examined the legal impact of European settle-
ment and concluded that discovery gave title to the continent to the
European nation which made the discovery ..." (Note: This view was
repudiated in the famous Worcester v. Georgia case.)
Page 15: ". . .Reservation Indians would have all the benefits of
citizenship and none of its burdens."
Page 16: ". . . non-Indians would have all the burdens of citizenship
but none of the benefits. This is a strange scheme to behold."
Page 18: "American Indian tribal governments have only those powers
granted them by Congress." (Note: Most of the governmental powers of
tribes are held to be implied and inherent. Except for the skeletal
grants of power for IRA tribes, Federal statutes are practically silent
on any grants of governmental powers.)
Page 18: "To the extent tribal Indians exercise powers of self-government
in these United States, they do so because Congress permits it."
Page 20: "... tribes may govern their own internal relations by
the grace of Congress."
93-440 O - 78 - 21
304
Senator James Abourezk May 4, 1977
Page 25: ". . . When these relationships culminated in peace treaties,
it is simplistic, to say the least, to assert that the Indians reserved
anything to themselves ..."
Page 25: "... I also reject the broad assertion that tribal Indians
have reserved to themselves inherent rights to self-government and
property rights ..." (Note: This comment flies in the face of
settled law that they did reserve basic governmental powers and many
property rights, i.e. Winters water rights.)
Page 52: "... there is no reason why Indians, any more than anyone
else, should receive favored tax treatment from the Federal Government.'
(Note: What happed to the legal principles affirmed in the famed
Cappoeman, Nicodemus and Stevens tax cases?)
Page 54: "... It may be seriously doubted whether Indian tribes
enjoy the power to tax." (Note: See Felix Cohen's statement, page
142, of his famous Handbook wherein he says: "One of the powers
essential to the maintenance of any government is the power to levy
taxes. That this power is an inherent attribute of tribal sovereignty
which continues unless withdrawn or limited by treaty or by Act of
Congress is a proposition which has never been successfully disputed."
Each of the tribes the writer represents has taxing ordinances.)
Page 84: "... an Indian reservation created by executive order of
the President conveys no right of use or occupancy . . . beyond the
pleasure of Congress and the President." (What a horrible distortion
of the law!)
Page 92: "... an Indian tribe is above the law ..." and as to
contracts with tribes . . ."the agreement is enforcible only by the
tribe . . ." (This is a gross exageration. )
And finally page 102: "Doing justice by Indians does not require
doing injustices to non-Indians . . ."
The foregoing are trigger phrases addressed to a growing anti-Indian
bias. They should not be in the concluding chapter of the report of
the Policy Review Commission. We hope that you as Chairman can make
arrangements for a dignified, suitable reply.
Respectfully yours,
ROBERT D. DELLWO
Attorney for the Spokane, Kalispel
and Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribes
RDD : f b
Spokane Tribal Council
Kalispel Business Committee
Coeur d'Alene Tribal Council
305
Senator James Abourezk May 4, 1977
cc: Area Office of Indian Affairs
Superintendent, Spokane Indian Agency
Superintendent, Northern Idaho Agency
Mel Tonasket, President, National Congress of American Indians
306
GEORGE C. DELONEV!
meOBIPNI 3329 NORTH OAKLEY AVH.
=— = CHICAGO. lUiNQis ^JJ
Vte recognize that you may not be able to thorou^y read and evaluate elll parts
of this Report within the time allowed for ocnment. lioMever, in order to
incluSe your ocmments in our Final Report, this questionnaire itust be ocrapleted
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than April 16, 1977.
Our Final Report must be catpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Ocnmission ^jproval.
NAM E George G. Deloneyr 3329 N. Oakley ave ADDRESS Ghtcago. ai.
60618
TRIBE/ORGANIZATION caijppewa; Alliance of American Indian Craftamen.Inc
PLEASE CIRCr£ ONE TO PDICATE YOUR IDEMTITY AS ;
Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body
State Official Private Citizen
"X Mjr identity; Allotted member of Bad River Reservation. 0danah.iWlscon8in
B. PLEfiSE EVALUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKIN3 THE BLANK WHICH MOST MmS
REPRESEWTS YOUR OPINICN .
Excellent Good Poor
The report as a vrtiole is - Kf fM t> U ^o </
I. History /^
II. Legal Concepts ^^
III. Conditions u^ ,^
IV. Federal-Indian Relations « Bo/wt '^' ^ y tf a. # >-.» "Jt^J -ar u fAitf^ '^ ^
V. Tribal Government Oa/ A//e 7TtJ ffiStr ^/f/Jo ^ - 'Tri'^l (Z>uiml i I /\,'o-f»»'L
VLfii^ Federal Administration- tfv r/Sirv/ftiJ * - '/ i»lz*/<^b /n r ^* >" _SJlftil±*
VII. Ecoronic Developinent ^/t iiMt '^ t^ tt-J-
VIII. Social Services ^^
IX. Of f -Reservation - /nin^poli t^ /m//a /^£ /\n t-J cetn^k h /i Jtr*-/ Jimt J-f'
X. Terminated Indians SDfttf Q OOt /tUASMf^ifCuits^
XI. Non-Reoognized Indians ff/f^ytva /•«»/ 41 ^/tt/DCt- -
XII. Special Problan Areas A/rt.t'of- e ./itd.tC ~ iU^J- rtt^- J o^ «^*^y
XIII. General
GEORGE C. DELONEY
B329 NORTH DAKLEY AVE.
CUICAGQ. ILUNQIS i606ia
307
GEORGE C. DEOmEa
S329 NORTH OAKLEY WE
CHICAGO. ILUKQIS fiOSia
NM C a«opg« O. Dalon^y
APR 1 9 1977
5329 H. Oakley «ve.
ADDRESS Chicago . 111.60618
TRIBE/a«3ftNlZATlCN Chippewa; Alllaiw of Anerlcan Indian Oraftwnen.Inc
Chapter ( ) Page ( ) Paragraph ( )
In the secticn beginnixig with the words "_
," it is suggested that the following addition,
deletion or cliemge in wording be made, or the following concept expressed
dif f er«itly : Have received several overall tentative cognizable
volmnea re Policy of Task Foreea Investigations.
Preaently I have reported the Metropolitan (IJrban)
Indiana situation in this area.
1 hav^ tippiaTM bfetorft T wo T aak- t orce I t upit r y.
O hfe ha r a in cnieago, mo tt ie r t ime In superior, wis.
Also baan m eoncae t wi t h umls B r uea wi t h I ndian
cemplftln t B. T ha t had need lamediate at t ention.
So I apologized for not comnltting myself.
GEORGE C. DELONEY
Ba aO NORI I I OAKLEy AV E .
CtUCAGOLllimUS 150618
308
JS29n. 0aA/e^ ave
^Atca^c SI/. 606J8
Mr.Ernest L. Stevens. /tA. 3^2'54(9'0372
Amer- Indian Policy Review Commission
2nd and D Sts. SW.
Washington, D.G. 20515
Sen. Jim. S. Abourezk.
Con^. Sidney Yates.
Mr. Louis R. Bruce.
Mr. Kirke KickingBird.
Gentlemen and Members of the Commission:
Thats one "ELL" of a bible that the commission submitted for individual
real positive American Indian to scant through in such short time for
his comments.
If this report wanders-off from real expected subject that the Urban
and reservation Indians would reveal or should tentatively report.
Try to comprfehend the anguish, that the War and the BIA commission have
render to the reservation Indians.
Especially to the reservation that had been allotted to individuals.
Since the Wheeler-Howard Act, was crammed upon the "ALLOTTEES" without
their exception. They realized the reservation live was doomed.
I am a Allottee from the Bad River Reservation located in Ashland County
Wisconsin. Which I still possess but pky Taxes on my U.S. grant
After the Tribal Council was effecting the individualism of the allot-
tees. I applied for certificate of competency for removal of restrict-
ion, which I received.
When the Wheeler-Howard was being substituted for the BIA operation.
The Indian Agency officials had connived or manipulated that "non-
allotted" Indians to vote for the none voting allotted Indians for
"Self -Government.
With this structure or elements of Indian Treaty Rights on allotted
reservation. It began a conflict between the Allottees and the non-
allottees for existence.
Presently the only inhabit Indian should benefit for our Treaty Rights
would be the "Inheritance or direct Devisee Indian" from allotments.
If the said allotment had not been confiscated to Tribal property.
309
Amer- Indian Policy Review Jomm.
The urban atmosphere for the American Indians in the Chicago area.
Have met with overwhelm cognate set-back or defeat.
When or if some Indians are unlawful they are severely penalized, while
their comrades are cited or restricted for being in accomplishment.
iieveral Indians have been murdered in this area by non-indians.
Suilty persons that admit the motivation would have the case continue
out of existence.
If another Indian commit the same crime, he or she is placed on five
(5) years probation to be serve on their home reservation.
Periodical some Indian is raped or found naked dead. Or otherwise
murdered. The City officials will not extent their efforts to invest-
igate for the culprits. U'hen the victims are American Indians.
The Urban Indians have no protection for being victimized in this area.
The State of Illinois Children and Family Services are the only legal
structure that allows protection for Indian Children.
I have appeared before Task-Force in relation to the American Indian
Policy Committee here in Chicago.
I related my circumstances of how the Children and Family Services had
Kid-napped our grandchildren.
Maybe they had conspired warrant to barge into our home for one (1) of
the oldest grandchild.
Who was unfortunate to be bom out-of wedlock. •
This whole plot was generated by the supposed parents of deceased
married son who may have genesis with our un-married daughter.
When our grand-daughter was apprehended in this invasion the officials
also had taken into custody her youngest sister who had no relationship
in this conspiracy.
This infraction was construed Janruary 19tcen 1970.
Since that date I have spent 10 to 15 thousands of dollars engaging
attorneys for the recovery of our grand-daughters.
Last August 17teen 1976, we were fortunate enough to be consider the
return of our oldest grand-daughter.
Who is now in our stable custody in our home.
310
Amer- Indian Policy Review Goram.
^shortly after the Children apprehension. The caseworkers for the Ghild-fs
ren and Family Services separated the two sisters to different Adopt-
ion Centers.
This action was instigated by the Children and Family caseworkers,
while our case was still pending in Children Juvenile Court.
In absent of parental or Juvenile Court supervision rights, while the
Court was still analyzing our case history, with court continuances.
This Adoption Center had conspired with the Children and Family Service
to allow our youngest grand-daughter to be adopted with-out our rights.
l-Jhen we were notified of this adoption, we engaged another attorney
through the recoramandation of Bertram E.Hirsch. attorney with the Assoc-
iation on American Indian Affairs of New York City.
This local attorney had applied to the State Supreme Court for review
of our Indian Child adoption. Which they denied our Indian Civil Rights,
Hesitatingly we cannot appeal our court situation as we cannot fare the
expense for Indian children protection. Or to gain other protection.
311
Amer-Indian Policy Review Goran.
The metropolitan (Urban) Indians have highly skill craf tsmenship.
That is regarded by their employers and unions to be out-standing.
Societies are no unbias concern, if the Indian is willing to prove
that he's capable of his mastership of his Tradition.
We have excellent Indian construction workers in all major crafts.
Welders, Riggers, Carpenters, Steel or Iron Workers, High window-
washers, Truck-Drivers of all sorts. Deep-sea Divers, Cement Finish-
ers, Boiler-Makers, Heat-Treaters , Ship-wrighters, Watch-Makers ,
Vfood-cravers , Furniture-repairers, Pier and Wharf Builders, Auto
Mechanics, Crane-operators, Interior Decorators, Me at -Bute hers.
Mason- Tuck Pointers, Pipe-Fitters, Taxi Drivers, Bus Drivers, Bar-
Tenders, Cooks, Painters, Roofers, Gardeners, Tree-Trimmers, Type-
Writer repairers, Factory-Workers, Black-Smiths, Cabinet -Makers,
Boat-Builders, Carpet and Rug Layers, Millwrights, Stair-Builders,
Caiilkers and Pile Drivers, Display Erectors, and Electricians.
All of these mentioned craftsmen, are Union members of Chicago.
Also we have retired Indians from reservation who have earned a
pensions for their union stabilities.
Which means they may return to their reservation with this income.
While I am mentioned the Union Indian craftsmen, we also have many
professional Indians in this area.
Accountants, Office-Typists j Office-Controllers, Short-Hand Writers,
Social -Workers, X-Ray Technicians, Nvirses, Receptionists, Artists,
Executives, Teachers, School Directors, or Principals, Librarians,
and University Standards.
Those Indians that compose in these different categories, are the
inspired Indians that were raised on some Indian reservation.
Most of them had hard knocks before they became familiar with the
metropolitan diversion.
They had to earn and prove to realize themself that they had the
stability to exist from their native tradition.
Still the maiority, have the impulsiveness for their home reservation,
which they visit frequently.
As they are all Tribal members, and still claim their Tribal rights.
312
Amcr-Indian Policy Review Comm.
There are several American Indian Organizations here in the Chicago
vicinity. And few more others in the neighboring locations. (Cities).
The principal inaudible faction that the relationship exist between
these Tribal societies.
Which spirit them that they are connoting the same ideals they have.
This maybe the adversity that metropolitan Indians have relinquished
for the lack of full co-operation.
It a vmderstanding fact that every other Indian native has different
view on their tribal tradition or custom.
Some will not contribute their craftmenship for employer, unless the
company or contractor engages another native of his same race.
Other successfiil craftmen (Indians) will admonish to the company per-
sonal or non-indian crews that they have number one (1) citizen to
content with. Wish often proves that everybody can be familiar.
The female anxiety appears that when they are employed without any-
other of their same lineage (Indian).
That they complain that the non-indians are criticizing them. So
The newly Indian trainees that have no experiences in special safety
precaution such special work dress gears, (clothes and safety belts).
Complain that they have no credit or expense to obtain this equipment.
Or how they will manage to afford to join the Unions.
So they too get discourage.
Basically most reservation Indians that arrives in the metropolitan
area want to become involve in the indian atmosphere.
Be employ in government offices, and Indian organizations.
While I am only whitling down the character of some of our inexperi-
ences young Indian Leaders of to-morrow.
I must phase that we have had successful Indian policemen, fire-men,
and independent Businessmen from Indian reservation.
Some still own their apartment buildings, here in Chicago.
So without any drawbacks or discouragements most of these American
Indians could become a prominent independent number one citizen.
But they need plenty of encouragement and assistances.
313
Amer- Indian Policy Review CJotnm.
CJurrently I will expedite my measurements of infiltration with off
the reservation activities.
I first committed myself with paid tuition to attend a Milwaukee , Wis . ,
Vocational School. (1927).
Which I had to familiarized with other race elements.
As a scholar I commented that what these students could master.
I could excel better.
When high-way road building began in the 1930 's, I became a highway
road cement-finisher. Which I first worked as a Union member on permit.
This highway work was sparingly or seasonally.
Next I became familiar with the stevedore labor in the Milwaukee Ports.
Which this Union utilize stable members for wharehouse activities.
From that experience with loading trucks and semi- trailers.
1 final declare that I could operate any truck-vehicle in the city or
on the highways.
I applied and received Union truck-operator's certificate for Driver.
This certificate allow the holder to operate city taxi cabs also.
During world-war two, the government was building ship-yards, and
building some kind of war-ships in the Milwaukee area.
So I join the Pile-driver Union to become a ship-wright builder.
Finnally the general contractor, Raymond Concrete Pile Company of
New York City with whom I wasemployed.
Had me transferred to Chicago where they had several building contracts
in the construction operation.
So I had to transfer my Union affiliation as I was in charge of operat-
ion. Plus I had to move the family without any future plans.
With that move from reservation to be responsible of building action
in becoming Foreman and sub-superintendent.
Was a great venture for unde^eLope Indian without no education or
experience of building high-rises, churchs, and Bank buildings.
If I had more knowledge or modem building experiences I could still
be engage in a swivel chair.
As it is now I am in the semi-retired classification.
Have to accept pension and social security for having the guts to leave
the Indian reservation.
And raise six boys and foxur daughters in the metropolis.
314
Nancy Evans
Window Rock, Arizona
May 5, 1977
Response to:
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Final Report
SOCIAL SERVICES & FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE-
FOR INDIANS
Social Services and Financial Assistance programs for Indians present
unique case. Administrative authority to deliver these services vary di-
versely for those Indians living on reservation under the authority of the
federal government to those Indians living in other setting outside the
authority of the federal government.
A number of specific recommendations can be made based on the tradi-
tional federal-tribal relationship and for those Indians in other settings
where varying degree of authority are shared by tribes, states and the
federal government.
Financial Assistance Programs
1, Social Security Act Financial Assistance Programs ; Financial Assis-
tance programs under the Social Security Act as the Aid to the Aged, Aid
to the Disabled, Aid to the Blind and Aid to Dependent Children were ad-
ministered totally by the State until 1973 when parts were placed under
a federal agency. These assistance became available to Indians mainly
in the 1950' s after many disputes with states as to whether Indians are
eligible.
Even today eligibility criteria are often not to the benefit of
Indians where questions of resources and income prevent many people from
receiving regular financial assistances; and the amount of assistance
often are lower for Indians residing on the reservation.
2. Snyder Act Financial Assistance Program ; BIA under the authority of
the Snyder Act made available to Indians on reservation financial assis-
tance called General Assistance. Although the eligibility criteria are
simple: (1) that one must be an enrolled Indians; <2) that the Indian
must reside on the reservation and (3) that one must be in need; the
interpretation of eligibility varied from one area to another and
practices varied from one caseworker to another.
Up to 1973, the 66 lAM was the only BIA Manual which provided the
guide for providing this assistance to Indian people. With the Morton
vs. Ruiz determination and decision BIA was requested to published its
regulation in the Federal Register. The proposed regulations were
315
published in November 1975. Comments which were received were reviewed
and incorporated into the final regulations in the spring of 1976. A
number of critical issues remain unanswered although attempts were made
to clarify these during the writing of the regulations,
a. Definition of "on or near:" the Tribal governmental units are
asked to define this jointly with the BIA officials,
b. Standards of Assistance (amount of grant) still follow the
respective established state standards so that non-uniformity of
assistance continues.
c. Clarification of what is meant by "availability of assistance"
versus "actually provided."
After the final Regulations were drafted the Tribes were asked to
recommend an "on and near" definition for determining eligibility for
assistances for their own tribal members. BIA is now in the process of
updating its manual to reflect the published regulations.
Recommendations for Financial Assistance
1. There must be a national uniform standards of assistances applied
in all states so that these can be reflected in individual services and
assistance,
2. There must be clear indication that financial assistance is made
available to prevent disintegration 'of family units and not to employ
standards which provide assistance only to broken and dependent families
or individuals.
3. Because the level of poverty in Indian land is severe, continued BIA
General Assistance funding is needed until such time that a federal pro-
gram nation wide is established that will meet the needs of the unenq>loyed
and underemployed which the BIA program presently addresses on Indian
Reservation.
4. Because BIA General Assistance is not uniformly available to all
Tribes and Reservation, the need for BIA General Assistance for Indians
residing on reservation in the PL-280 States be evaluated. If inadequate
financial assistance programs or severe poverty are found, BIA should
consider making BIA General Assistance available to the Indians in these
areas.
Social Service Programs
Issues related to social services for Indians are extremely important
316
for two reasons: (1) many social services involve legal and jurisdic-
tional matters requiring Tribal government to establish Tribal legisla-
tion standards and conduct of services, and (2) since social services
deals with human values and human value system as child-rearing
practices and family problem solving, it is essential that Indians and
Tribal organization maintain close surveillance over social services
for their tribal members.
I, Social Security Act Social Service Pro;<rams : Since 1963 the
Social Security Act has provided funds to States (and states only) to
administer certain social services for people. This worked well as
long as the States directly provided services and as long as Indians
traditional practices and values were not jeopardized. Conflicts
arose when question of who has jurisdiction to make decision for
Indian families and Indian children were challenged. This challenge
is carried into who should administer social service programs for
Indians. With the Indians determined to maintain jurisdiction over
its tribal members these conflicts mushroomed and remain unresolved
today.
In the interest of Tribes the ideal situation is where a Tribe
can receive all funds available for social services: where the Tribe
can establish the codes and standards for services; and where the
Tribe can administer and provide the services to its tribal members.
This ideal situation is not possible under the current funding
mechanism because Indian Tribes must first fight with the State to
get any social services funds under the Social Security Act. States
are reluctant to contract with Tribes because of uncertainty in
enforcing eligibility and other federal funding requirements. The
Tribes continue to be reluctant to deter any matter of jurisdiction
to States for fear of eroding Tribal government authority.
There is widespread support that all federal funds should be
available directly to Tribes, rather than designating States as
pass-through channel. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona in October
1975 summarized the crux of the issue with the following statement:
"There have evolved over the years fundamental and essential prin-
ciples that are adhered to in Federal-Tribal relationships. The
State and its subdivision coordinate and cooperate within the frame-
work of laws and regulations formulated over a considerable period
of time. Given the special character of the Tribes and the reserva-
tions as defined by the Tribes and the Federal Government, it cannot
be expected that the tribal structures can suddenly developed a re-
lationship with the State structure without some special adjustments
on the part of the State and the Tribes. In order that the tribes
can relate to the State, they will want to maintain the necessary
and desirable relationships they have with the Federal structure."
317
The difficulties evolving around the jurisdiction and legal pro-
blems cannot be resolved through negotiation between two parties where
three are actually involved,
2, Snyder Act Social Service Programs ; Again BIA administers social
services as provided under the Snyder Act, Again, BIA has continuously
looked to States for guides resulting in lack of uniformity in programs
or practices.
Up to 1973, 66 1AM provided the only guide for BIA programs. With
the Morton-Ruiz decision the Regulations were published and are finalized.
A number of issues require review and monitoring:
1. Clarification of "availability of services" versus "services actually
provided." Because various BIA office continue to maintain "availability
on paper" as synonymous with "actually provided" there is lack of
uniformity in services provision.
2. That other social services as are provided by the Social Security
Act funds not jeopardize BIA funding for social services. Because the
Social Security Act funding is limited and there is caution against
"supplanting of programs, "these issues should be reviewed in terms of
needs in Indian settings. Joint funding must be explored as answers to
gaps in funding needs. The level of funding through BIA to fill gaps
should be maintained until service needs in Indian lands are reduced
to the level of Social Service needs nationwide.
Recommendation for Social Service Programs
1. That all Social Security Act Funding mechanism provide for Tribes
to receive funds directly from the Federal Government, so that Tribes
can administer and provide social services for their own tribal members,
2. Because the amount of social service needs for Indian is great and
that the kinds (definition) of services needs are undefined that the
level of funding through the BIA be equivalent to the amount needed to
fill the gaps in funding as available through the Social Security Act
funding,
3. That BIA review needs for social services by Tribes residing in
the PL-280 States, Because many times availability of services to
Indians are on papers only, actual provision of services must be
determined and funding through the BIA channel be explored for those
tribes not currently receiving funds for service needs under the
Snyder Act.
318
4. That contracts with Tribal Governnent units to administer and pro-
vide social atrvlces be a prinw objectives for all social service fund-
ing source.
5. That coordinated funding from themany sources be promoted for the
development of comprehensive programs without the label of "supplanting
programs.'* This will require that Tribes be permitted to develop the
kinds of services needed by utllliing all funds available through the
Social Security Act, the Older American Act, the Indian Health Services
Programs and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
6. That provision be made so Tribes can develop legislation and
standards of services which reflect Tribal uniqueness and needs.
OVERALL RECOtlMENDATIONS
Congress ; In support of Tribe's rights and wish to develop their ovm
social services programs. Congress should amend all federal legislation
which prevent Tribes from receiving federal funds directly. Many
federally funded human service programs require that funds flow through
"single state agencies" and because of jurisdictional conflicts between
Tribes and States, this in most cases prevent Tribes from receiving the
funds or service.
Federal Administering Agencies : Since politics between Federal Regional
Offices and States prevent realistic implementation of any federal funding
requirement that a strong Central Office be maintained so that if Federal
Funding Requirements are to be implemented at all that this office will
not only spell out guidelines but also compliance procedures. The results
of non-compliance should clearly define whether (1) penalities will be
Imposed or (2) that technical assistance are provided together with (3)
incentives for good behaviors. Up to now all regulations, guidelines
have been on paper: even findings of non-compliances have been on papers
...no withholding of federal funds as penalities have resulted enough
to impact compliance with federal requirements.
Tribal Governmental Units ; That a National Tribal Governmental Organiza-
tion be established so that this can (1) monitor funding sources; (2)
call to surface need for national legislation to protect Tribe's develop-
ment of social services and (3) provide technical assistance to Tribal
Governmental Units in the areas of Indian uniqueness.
319
FCNIA
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION
22 April 1977
24B Swiond StrMt, N.E.
fion. D.C. 20002
(202) 547-4948
SKUitor Jam** S. Abouraik, Chairman
Amarlcan Indian Policy Review Conmlselon
Congraaa of tha United Statea
Houaa Office Building Annex No. 2
Second and D Straeta, S.W.
Waahlngton. DiC. 20515
Dear Senator Abouraik:
We wlah to thank you for the opportunity to coiment on the "tentative"
Final Report of the American Indian Policy Review ConmisBlon. Although
«e have not had the time to read through the entire draft, we have read
thoae parte of which we have some knowledge. We also have read other
aectione of which we know extremely little to see if they presented
flndinga and recomnendatlons in a comprehensible manner. We believe
they do, even though there still remain some rough spots which, we are
aura, will be corrected by final editing and proofreading.
In the first chapter, "Captives Within a Free Society," a few problems
remain in condensing and combining the three authors papers. Some
points are unnecessarily, to us, repeated. There needs to be a consis-
tency in the use of "Dawes Act" or "General Allotment Act. After men-
tioning both the first time, rely on one term. All in all, it is truly
remarkable that three authors' styles and information have been so ably
combined to flow as they do.
On page 1-52, line 5, the word "manned" is used. There seems elsewhere
to be an attempt to use non-sexist language, and we suggest substituting
here the word "staffed." The attempt to use both pronouns, he/she, Is
abaent from some pagea and the generic pronoun, "he," is sometimes used.
If time permits, one could change these spots by using they.
In Chapter 8, "Social Services," pagea 8-43 to 8-48 and 8-74 pertain to
nutritional needs in Indian country. We suggest, time permitting, that
the recent Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs report.
"Recommendationa for Improved Food Programs on Indian Reservations,
April 1977 , be mentioned in the body of the findings or as an annotation.
Furthar, we sense strongly that the principles embodied in the Nolan
(H.R. 5466) and Young (S. 1119) bills should be part of the recommenda-
tiona on page 8-74. We understand that Indian people did have large
input into drafting these Identical bills. Most important are the
racoamiKidations that tribal administration be an option of the tribes,
that technical assistance and funds be made available to the tribes to
davalop expertise in administration as well as to develop transportation
■nd distribution systems, and that food stamps and/or commodities be an
option of the tribes. (continued)
83-440 O - 78 - 22
320
Senator James Abourezk
22 April 1977
Page 2
Should not some mention be made of the relationship of a proposed
Federally funded national health care system (via insurance) and the
existing health system for Indian peoples?
The two final comments we offer are on matters beyond our experience
or time for analysis. First, we simply wonder if the status of Native
Hawaiians can be addressed somewhere in the final report.
Secondly, we urge that consideration be taken now, in Chapter 2, "Legal
Concepts in Indian Law," of the April 4, 1977, Supreme Court decision.
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, Governor of South Dakota, et. al. We
feel that some legislative recommendations are needed immediately to
resolve this matter of allotment lands in a manner more satisfactory
than the majority decision on this case. We know that we are joined
In this concern by many in Indian country.
With strong appreciation of the work, politics, and love which went into
the Commission's work, we remain
Sincerely yours ,
0^(^-"
Don Reeves
DR/skm
321
GALLUP-McKIHLEY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
GALLUP, NEW MEXICO 87301
JACK SWICE(iOOD. Sup^.M
OFFICt OF THE SUPERI
April 6, 1977 ''•°- BOX i3i«
T,l.. (505) 72J-389I
The Honorable James Abourezk
Chairman, American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2d and D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk,
Thank you very much for your interest in the Gallup -McKinley
County School District as evidenced by your solicitation of comments
on the "tentative" Final Report of the American Indian Policy Review
Commission.
I would first state that Congressman Meed's dissenting opinions
take a great deal of courage. Even though his views are probably
unpopular in this particular report, I personally think his opinions
are cogent and shoiild be heeded by those who purport to help the
Indian.
One area of the report that demands emphasis concerns educational
building needs. On the one hand the federal government has taken the
position that state and local governments should make a special effort
to educate the Indian, but on the other hand has provided a pittance
for construction of educational facilities.
Another point I would like to mention is the use of P.L. 871+
funds as they apply to reservation areas. The federal government
states that the LEA is entitled to this additional funding to meet
the unique educational needs of a given area. However, the federal
government then turns around and allows a state like New Mexico to
take 95/? credit for these funds in their "eqiialization" finance
formula.
Again, thanks for your interest and best wishes for the success
of your commission.
Sincerely yours
Lncerely yours,
Dr. Jack Swicegood
Superintendent
322
Nb raooyilas that you my not be able to thocoughly read and evaluate all parts
of this ni|JU,L within the tine allcwed far ocHaent. BcjmNet, in order to
include your ociiinents in cur Final Report, this questionnaire aust be cscnplstad
and returned in the enclosed envelope poetnartod no later than April 16, 1977.
Our Final Repart oust be ooqplebed by May 15, 1977 for £inal OaandSBion acfxoval.
tw e ^^- ^ . L (^ [\AR\J tS.(/( . mssss^pf^ nJ^ST
A. PIgftSE CIRCLE CUE TO DlDICa!EE TOUR ILiaHTlY flS ;
Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body Individual Indian
McBtxr of Congress Qrganizaticnal Governing Board
State Official I Private Citizen
PlaSE EVMXJgaE THE S351CTIONS EBf CHECKING THE HLftNK WHICH MOST NEftRia
BEPRESBirS TOUR CPINCCN.
The
r^xjrt as a whole is
History
Legal Conoepts
Conditions
Itederal-Indian Relations
Tribal Goverment
Federal Administraticn
Economic DevelOEinent
Social Services
Off-Reservation
Teminated lidians
Non-Reoognized Indians
fecial Problan Areas
General
Excellent
Good
•Boat
I.
l^
II.
HI.
IV.
V.
VI.
K
VII.
l>^
VIII.
(^
IX.
<^
X.
^^
XI.
i^
XII.
XUI.
323
C. BK/JHS RBM? TSE raoatBClBIKKS M* THE BP Of BCH SBCWCM, PUSfiSE ANBIgR
1) Mhich reocmienclations should be given prloority status? Mh/? 9-
2) Are there reocmnegidaticifB with which you disagree? Why? ■
t^£J ^^vH ./X^<tK^^
■^
3) Are there recjomnendations you would liJoe to have added?
4) Do y>u feel the content of the repbart provides an accurate, useful
picture of the situation? y IS, <j My qiur.cd
■ •^>:V^^^7^
5) DO you have aiy additional oa«ent«? fft /^^ .^ „^ft^^
L-**"^^*-* -.»^^iAl-*^ ^^^^w."^ >Ofc><^^^V ^4^^tAA^^
BOtCB, IS PIBWDBDOWTg fCUOmiB BMES POR TOOR
324
TRIBE/ORGftNIZKnCN
Chapter ( ) Page { ) Paragraph { )
In the sectior beginning with the wards
it is suggested that the foUowing addition.
deletion car diange in wording be made, or the following oonoept expressed
differently:
'a^ VVn.-vv-TyiPw^'^ ^ JJ4yt.^*^ ^^y^\^^<A^l dJ^ar>/ »
^■A^^/^ ,^^y :^:;^. ^^>.c> /}./!. 'T/J^JT^ ^l^ '^"
325
I an wilting this letter to lapLors jveur help to pratoot ny
olTil tights cs • resort and campground omer on Lao Court 0'IM.llea
'^\ «*iioh is located en the Chippetca Indian Besarratlon — at least as far
as they are oonoemed. nils particular band of Chippewa Indians is
attenpting to enforce a 25-page Codes and Rsgulatlons goTeming all
property owiers on the reseiration, including non-Indians. Yet m
do not hare any voice or voting lights in thed.r tilbal gorenuiait.
Hy property (15 aores of land) ms po-iohased fioa the Indians
in the 1920* s with a clear UUe and dead signed by the Presldnt of
the United States. Does this not insure us of our dvil lights to
abide by the laws of the SUte of Hlabonsln and the United SUt^s of
Alieiloa rather than a 25-paga book of Indian rales and regulatlonsT
PLBiLSe ranember that we are oiUtens of these United SUtea
as well as the Indians on the reaerratlons. Alni I feel that the
puiposa(s) of Indian HsserratLons is obsolete and these Indian people
should be allowed to fend for themselves the same as the other races
living in the United States.
I hope, therefore, that you will consider the RIGHTS of JtU.
AMERICANS Wian voting upon any future legisLatlon or refom.
Sbtoerd.y yours,
Calvin Ho man
TRAIL'S OTD IGS)Rr
326
HAG
Housing Aflslfltance Council Inc. • 1828 L Street N.W • Suite 606 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • (208) 872-8640
March 31, 1977
The Honorcible James Abourezk
United States Senate
1105 Dirksen Senate Office
Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Abourezk:
The Housing Assistance Council recently received a copy
of the tentative final report of the American Indian Policy Review
Commission.
We have reviewed the report and found that the housing section
was not included. In June, 1976, Robert Leatherman, after a
substantial effort, submitted a report for the Commission titled
"The Indian Housing Efforts in the United States." Our staff
assisted with providing information and also contacted a number
of Indian tribes.
The failure of the Commission to include the housing report
seems to be an unfortunate omission which could be misinterpreted
or a lack of interest in housing matters by Indians , we know that
this is not the case.
We know that you, in the past, have shared our concern about
the terrible housing problems faced by Indians. We urge, therefore,
that you reconsider the exclusion of the housing section from the
final report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission and
to do what you can to see that it is included.
Sincerely yours,
Roland Chico
Indian Housing
Coordinator
HC/lh
327
GEORGE R. ARIYOSHI
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS
April 11, 1977
The Honorable James S . Abourezk
Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Bldg. Annex No. 2
2D and D Streets , SW
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk:
Thank you for sending me the American Indian Policy Review
Commission's "tentative" Final Report.
The report is indeed a comprehensive and far-ranging one . It conflins
a wealth of information and many excellent recommendations . There is
very little that we can add to the report .
As you know , the Indian population of Hawaii is quite small . In the
spring of 1976, a 5-percent sample census of our state found 1,893 American
Indians living outside of military barracks and institutions . They thus
amounted to only . 2 percent of the total .
Notwithstanding this small Indian population , we are deeply interested
in the work of the Commission , and wish you all success in your work .
With warm personal regards , I remain ,
Yours very truly ,
^rge W- Ariyoshi /
328
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
WASHINGTON. DC 20202
APR 1 2 1977
Honorable James S, Abourezk
Chairman, American Indian Policy
Review Commission
House Office Building, Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk:
This is in response to your request for me to comment on the Education
section of the tentative Final Report of the American Indian Policy
Review Commission.
I recommend the following clarifications and corrections:
Pages 8-79 In paragraph 3, "The primary agencies controlling Indian
education are: (1) The Office of Education under H.E.W.
which administers. . o", add the following, "the Indian
Education Act of 1972, Title IV, Public Law 92-318," and
"the Indian set-aside in the Education for all Handicapped
Children Act (P.L. 94-1A2).
Pages 8-95 In line 3, change "between" to "among."
Pages 8-104 In paragraph 2, the figures of 140,000 and 100,000 are
questionable unless the sources are indicated.
From the Indian Education Act, Public Law 92-318, the
Office of Education provides supplemental funding for 302,000
Indian students in public schools in Part A above. In
addition other Indian students are assisted through other
legislative authorities such as Title I (P.L. 89-10),
Handicapped legislation (P.L. 94-142) and Part B of the
Indian Education Act.
Pages 8-104 In paragraph 3, line 4, the term "JOM" should be deleted
as this Johnson O'Malley program is administered by the
BIA-Interior rather than USOE-HEW.
329
Page 2 - Honorable James S. Abourezk
To this reviewer, the findings on pages 8-76 to 8-78 do not appear to be
related to the recommendations on 8-120 to 8-130. The recommendations do
not appear clear as to meaning and format.
On page 8-105, in enumerating USOE's specific involvement in Indian education,
no mention is made of: (1) Public Law 94-142 (1975) which has set-aside
funds for Indian handicapped students, and (2) Public Law 9A-A82 (1976)
which has a set-aside fund for Indian adults from the Vocational Act of 1963,
as amended.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely yours,
S. Gabe Paxton, Jr., D.Ed. / ^
Acting Deputy Commissioner
Office of Indian Education
330
The Houma Alliance, Inc
RT. 6, BOX 88 B
HOUMA, LOUISIANA 70360
April 19, 1977
Senator James S. Abourezk, Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of The United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk:
We, the Native Americans, welcome any help we can get from the
American Indian Policy Review Commission. We believe that you are
heading in the right directions in adopting a national policy for
all Indian people regardless of their status with the U. S. Govern-
ment. At this point we had all but lost hope that anything would
be done in behalf of Indians in this country. We firmly believe
it comes at the right time in history when our President is con-
cerned about human rights in other countries .
You speak of a workable solution within the frame work of government.
If you look closely at your information you will see that Native
Americans pay taxes, served in the Armed Forces, and died in defense
of America. Yet we've lived seperated from the white way of American
life. We believe there is a lot of work to be done in the fields
of education, economic development, and health care for Indians. We
as Americans have been denied all these things. We also believe
that you will not find in any other minority group the true patriotism
shown by the Native Americans.
Hunting and fishing rights for Native Americans is a way of life;
we firmly believe that this is our natural birth right. We believe
this to be a priority item to be re-evaluated.
In one way or another our land has been disposed of. We no longer
own any amount of land in Louisiana. Through tax manipulation the
whites have found ways to acquire Indian lands. On March 2, 1849
Congress saw fit to award to Louisiana lands belonging to the
Houma tribe. The Houma tribe in Louisiana has been left landless.
In the wake of white settlement the Houma tribe was cheated out of
these lands.
We would like now to quote Chief Joseph of the Nez Percys Tribe on
how Indian land were acquired.
331
Page 2 - Senator Abourezk
'Suppose a white man should come to me and say "Joseph, I like your
horses, and I want to buy them." I say to him, "No, my horses suit
me, I will not sell them." Then he goes to my neighbor, and say to
him: "Joseph has some good horses. I want to buy them, but he
refuses to sell." My neighbor answers, "Pay me the money, and I
will sell you Jos^h's horses." The white man returns to me and
says, "Joseph, I have bought your horses, and you must let me have
them." If we sold our lands to the government, this is the way they
were bought . '
We believe that Congress at this time should be able to solve the
problems which it faces with Indian tribes and nations. It is
hopeful that this issue will not be left alone to be resolve by
another generation.
Sincerely, ^_^
Howard J. Dion
Chairman
The Houma Alliance, Inc.
332
'I"
\ DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
► o REGIONAL OFFICE
? EXECUTIVE TOWER - 1405 CURTIS STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
May 4, 1977 '~ "^"^
80F
Honorable James S. Abourezk
Chairman, American Indian
Policy Review Commission
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for the copy of the Commission's "Tentative Final
Report" and for the opportunity to comment on its contents.
The report obviously involved a tremendous effort on the part
of the Commission to develop a definitive essay on the status
of Indian policies in this country. It contains excellent
material, particularly those chapters on trust land and tribal
government. We were, however, disappointed that housing
received scant attention. Only three pages out of the total
report mentioned housing to any degree, and then only in very
general terms.
The unfortunate part of this omission is that housing is one
of the basic needs of Indian people and therefore deserves
greater attention. Housing incorporates or transcends many
of the subjects addressed in greater detail in the report.
Housing construction provides opportunities for employment,
economic development and Indian entrepreneurship. Tribal
sovereignty is an important part of the Indian housing effort.
The status of trust land, on which most Indian housing is
constructed, poses unique and unusual problems that must be
resolved. A great many subjects in the report are touched in
some way or other by the various housing programs, particu-
larly those administered by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
While the Department has made giant strides in meeting the
housing needs of Indian families, there is general agreement
333
that a great deal of work remains to be done. Therefore, that
the Commission saw fit to offer only a solitary recommendation
on this subject, with which we agree, (see page 8-73), offers
little assistance to the Indian housing effort. In view of the
comprehensive housing report provided to the Commission, a more
extensive review of Indian housing should have been included in
the report.
Sincerely,
334
INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION
RIDDELI. BUILDING. 6TH FLjCXSR
1730 K Street nw.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006
April 20, 1977
Honorable James Abourezk,
United States Senate
Chairman, American Indian Policy
Review Commission
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Abourezk:
I thought the report of Task Force No. 9 contained a key to
the vexing question of Treaty Indians vs. Non-treaty Indians, etc.
and attached is a copy of my letter to "Chuck" expressing my
personal sentiments about it.
With kindest regards and best wishes, I remain.
Sincerely,
-0,.tl{'tiujy ^JU^.A^
Brantley Blue
Commissioner
335
INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION
RIDDEL.L BUILDING. 6TH FIjOOR
1730 K STREET NW.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006
April 20, 1977
Mr. Charles Trimble
Executive Director
National Congress of American
Indians
1430 K Street, N. W. , Suite 700
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Chuck:
It has been awhile since we talked. In the meantime, I have
personally agonized over the existing cleavages between Reservation,
Non-Reservation, Treaty and Non-Treaty Indian groups. It has been
especially troubling to me for years now, since the "Lumbees" have been
cast in the role as being the symbolic group that exemplifies all of
these cleavages. There is no way that the cleavages will cause me to
have animosity toward the reservation, treaty, groups. There is no way
for me to fail to support the inclusion of non-reservation, non-treaty
groups in Federal concern. However, it saddens me deeply to see such
intense efforts being made to oppose and exclude non-reservation and
non-treaty groups from all Federal programs.
Chuck, I think I gleaned an answer to this impasse upon reading
the task force report submitted by the legal task force of the American
Indian Policy Review Commission. In effect, it said, "non-reservation,
non-treaty Indians (Lumbees specifically being pointed out) should share
in Federal programs, but not at the expense of Reservation . . . treaty
Indians". The task force made clear and I agree , that the sharing of
the one group should in no way diminish the funds of the other group.
Isn't this a concept and a philosophy that all Indian groups could and
should unanimously rally around and support? I honestly believe so, 1
fervently hope so!
This principle could unite Indians. How desperately that is needed.
How much your leadership could unite all Indians during this critical
period.
Chuck, I know that you will give these thoughts earnest and prayer-
ful consideration as I have done. Our People . . . all of them . . .
are the benef iciiries! Thank you for letting me share some of my thirk-
Ing with you.
93-440 O - 78 - 23
336
with kindest regards and best wishes, I remain,
Very truly yours ,
Brantley Blue
Connnlssioner
P. S. Chuck, Indians are being challenged today, from all sides; there
has been nothing like this in many years. It is a time for togetherness
in order for the Indians to stand just a fair chance of receiving just,
fair and honest treatment at the hands of a just America. Permanent and
vital decisions are about to be made by Congress. How crucial!
Copy to:
Peter S. Taylor, Chairman,
Legal Task Force No. 9, AIPRC;
Hon. James Abourezk,
United States Senate,
Chairman, American Indian Policy
Review Commission;
Hon. Lloyd Meeds, United States
House of Representatives,
Chairman, American Indian Policy
Review Commission;
Adolph Dial, Commissioner, American Indian
Policy Review Commission;
Louis R. Bruce, Commissioner,
American Indian (Urban/Nonf ederally Recognized)
Ernie Stevens, Executive Director,
American Indian Policy Review Commission;
Mel Tonasket, President,
National Congress of American Indians;
Wendell Chino, President, National
Tribal Chairmen's Association.
337
REACTION TO THE SUMMARY OF EDUCATION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
Compiled at the:
18th Annual Indian Education Conference
Center for Indian Education
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Submitted by;
DrJ John W. Tippeconnic, Director
Center for Indian Education
338
The 18th Annual Indian Education Conference, sponsored by the Center
for Indian Education, Arizona State University, was held in Tempe,
Arizona on April 13-15, 1977. Approximately 500 individuals were in
attendance. The major purpose of the conference was to provide groups
(i.e., tribes, Indian organizations) and individuals an opportunity
to react to the educational findings and recommendations of the American
Indian Policy Review Commission (AIPRC) .
The rationale for the conference was based on the fact that the
educational findings and recommendations of AIPRC have been disseminated
to a select few. Thus, the conference program was developed
(Appendix A) , whereby every individual and group in attendance would
be informed of the educational findings, discuss them, then react.
REACTION DESIGN
Presentations ;
Workshops ;
1. AIPRC History, Functions, and Activities
2. Educational Findings and Recommendations
3. Expected Influence of the Report
To further discuss and react to the findings and
recommendations. Topics included:
1. The Delivery System — BIA
2. Higher Education
3. United States Office of Education
4. State Role in Indian Education
5. Tribal Control
1. Workshops
2. Groups (Tribes,
3. Individuals
Organizations)
Submitted to AIPRC for inclusion in the final report
339
PROCEDURES
Mr. Ernest Stevens, past Director, AIPRC, Mr. Ray Goetting, AIPRC
Consultant, and Mr. Charles Peone, AIPRC Consultant, orally
presented the educational findings. In addition, the educational
suimnary was made available to all conference participants.
A list of ten (10) General Findings was developed for conference
participants to react to in workshop sessions. (Appendix B) . In
addition, specific findings in higher education, BIA, tribal control,
state role in Indian Education, and the U.S. Office of Education
were developed. (Appendix C). Open-ended responses were also
solicited. An Individual Reaction Form was provided to record
reaction. (Appendix D) .
Individuals and groups were also encouraged to react outside the
workshop format. (Appendix E) .
340
FREQUENCY RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL FINDINGS OF AIPRC
GENERAL FINDINGS OF AIIERICAN IHDIAI^ POLICY PJIVIEW COMTIISSIOH
1. Shift all Federal education programs from OE and BIA to one administrative
agency .
2. Shift control of Federal funds for Indian education from state and local
governments to tribal governments.
3. Establish training programs for Indian teachers, administrators, counselors
and tribal advisors on education.
4. The consolidated Indian agency would be required to design, in conjunction
with Indian people, education programs it establishes to respond to the
needs of Indian people.
5. This agency and programs would require more efficient administration and an
accurate funding mechanism to assure that target monies reached the tribes.
6. Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in
assuming the responsibility for control of education in accordance with
their desires.
7. Amendments to P.L. 874 and 815 such that: (1) the dollars directed to aid
schools educating Indian students be funneled through a tribal monitoring
system, than to the school, (2) a set-asido provision is made to cover costs
of tribal administration.
8. Amendments to P.L. 638 such that (1) a duly elected Board of Regents may
be recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal cpinion to contract for
and administer post-secondary schools with a multi-tribal population;
(2) in case of multi-tribal elementary and secondary schools, a duly elected
Board of Ri;gents inUluding at least one representative from each tribe, be
recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to contract for
and administer those schools.
9. Amendments to P.L. 638 and JOII such that: (1) any dollars contracted for
the education of Indian children through P.L. 638 and JOM would pass through
trlLal conitoring system (?) in utilizing this contract or monitoring
pcwering with P.L. 638 or JOrl a tribe may decide the extent to which it wishes
to control the educational system affectin,'? its children. This decision runs
the gamut from total tribal ovjnership and control to utilization of the
tribal governitent only as a monitoring system, (3) if the tribes' option
to set up an organizational unit to monitor funds, a set-aside provision
should be made available to cover costs of tribal administration.
10. Amendments to all Indian education legislation such that: (1) the state or
local government not in compliance with agreements and contracts for Indian
education can be sued by the tribe in U.S. District Court or in a state court
of general jurisdiction, (2) the court may grant the plaintiff a temporary
restraining order, preliminary or permenent injunction or other order
including suspension, termination or repayment of funds or placing any further
payments in escrow pending the outcome of the litigation.
341
STRONGLY
AGREE
AG?IEE
MnRCTDKn
1.
23
22 .
23
2.
30
19
11
3.
51
24
2
4.
35
34
12
5.
47
30
9
6.
19
30
11
7. 19 31
8. 11
29 14
17
STRONGLY
PTSAfiRFiR
1
3 4
21 2 14
342
—FINDINGS—
343
OPEN REACTION TO THE TEN GENERAL FINDINGS
1. Shift all Federal education programs from OE and BIA to one administrative
agency .
REACTION ;
1. The transfer of programs to a new agency should be accomplished if
Indian people and their tribal governing bodies approve and design
transfer process.
2. (a) Agree to one agency since there would be consistency in the program.
Would like to see an educational movement with more emphasis placed
on the education of children.
(b) What guarantee is made, if a new agency is established, that the agency
will see more input from parents in their concepts of goals and direction
of education.
3. It needs to be defined who will be eligible for services and how the
agency will be implemented. If properly managed. It would be a good idea.
4. Shift some Federal education programs from OE and BIA to one administrative
agency .
5. Shift all Federal education programs and funds to one administrative
agency .
6. Shift all Federal education programs and funds allocations from OE and BIA
to one administrative agency.
2. Shift control of Federal funds for Indian education from state and local
governments to tribal governments.
Tribal governments may desire to participate in the shift of control on an
optional-ability basis. Some tribes may not have the skilled manpower to
assume total control and therefore the transition will be affected by this.
Urban Indians may have to group themselves into PAC-type groups; and since an
accurate count is not available, reservation tribes may have to assist in
the Identification and even the servicing of those whom they recognize as
tribal members.
344
2. What about Indians who are not under tribal government?
a. How will this recommendation affect those Indians living in the
urban area educational system?
b. How would urban Indians apply for education funding?
c. Is the recommendation only for tribal governments/organizations?
3. Establish training programs for Indian teachers, administrators, counselors
and tribal advisors on education.
1. Establish long-range training programs for Indian education personnel
In areas of: (1) teaching, (2) school administration, counseling,
(3) tribal advising. Also training programs should be developed in areas of:
tribal accounting, economics, financing, management and other technical
areas needed for tribal control.
2. Personnel involved in the education and training of Indian children should
be specially trained. Patricularly in viewing their personal concepts of
Indian children, learning of the people to whom they are to serve, their
customs, traditions and religion. Be more aware and respectful of their
way of life.
3. Establish training programs for Indian tribes, administrators, counselors
and tribal advisors. Programs that lead toward a degree or certification.
I*. The consolidated Indian agency would be required to design. In conjunction
with Indian people, education programs It establishes to respond to the
needs of Indian people.
1. The Indian people in conjunction with a consolidated Indian agency will
design education programs to respond to the needs of the people.
2. Agree; but need to Involve many educational designs would greatly depend on
the tribal structure and needs.
a. Some felt the sentence should state, "and consult" rather than the
wording "in conjunction."
345
This agency and programs would require more efficient administration and an
accurate funding mechanism to assure that target monies reached the tribes.
1. The Indian people, the agency, and the programs will require more
efficient administration and accurate funding mechanisms to assure that
target monies reach the tribes and the students.
2. They must have other targets as well.
3. This agency and programs would require more efficient administrative
distributiion and an accurate funding mechanism to assume that target
monies reached the tribe.
Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in
assuming the responsibility for control of education in accordance with
their desires.
1. Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in
assuming the responsibility for control of education in accordance with
the desires of tribal governments. In off -reservation areas with no
tribal Jurisdiction, federal funds must be administered by an Indian
parent committee with full policy and program control.
2. Meaning is unclear — if emphasis is on aid, will agree.
3. Question is not clear, no explanation given.
4. Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in
assuming the responsibility for control of education In accordance with
needs.
Amendments to P.L. 874 and 815 such that: (1) the dollars directed to aid
schools educating Indian students be funneled through a tribal monitoring
system, than to the school, (2) a set-aside provision is made to cover
costs of tribal administration.
Amend by addition the following: "We recommend that both laws be fully funded
to meet the urgent needs.
346
2. The laws do not pertain just to Indians (set-asides?)
Amendments to P.L. 638 such that (1) a duly elected Board of Regents may
be recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to contract
for and administer post-secondary schools with a multi-tribal population;
(2) in case of multi-tribal elementary and secondary schools, a duly
elected Board of Regents including at least one representative from each
tribe, be recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to
contract for and administer those schools.
Amend by addition of: "There must be assurance that all tribes involved
are duly ratified and involved in all transactions."
9. Amendments to P.L. 638 and JOM such that: (1) any dollars contracted for
the education of Indian children through P.L. 638 and JOM would pass
through tribal monitoring system (2) in utilizing this contract or
monitoring powering with P.L. 638 or JOM a tribe may decide the extent
to which it wishes to control the educational system affecting its
children. This decision runs the gamut from total tribal ownership
and control to utilization of the tribal government only as a monitoring
system, (3) if the tribes' option to set up an organizational unit to
monitor funds, a set-aside provision should be made available to cover
costs of tribal administration.
REACTION :
1. That's the way it is now — Why is an amendment necessary?
Amendments to all Indian education legislation such that: (1) the state
or local government not in compliance with agreements and contracts for
Indian education can b e sued by the tribe in U.S. District Court or in a
state court of general jurisdiction, (2) the court may grant the plaintiff
a temporary restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or other
order including suspension, termination or repayment of funds or placing
any further payments in escrow pending the outcome of the litigation.
1. It's already that way — why the amendment^
347
REACTION TO FIVE SPECIFIC AREAS
348
I. The Delivery System — BIA
1. Congress will initiate legislation for the funding and administration under
a consolidated Indian agency for programs:
A. To study and establish standards for Indian education and develop an
accreditation system for Indian schools.
B. To train non-Indians who teach and work with Indian children as an
interim measure until there are enough Indian educators.
C. To educate and prepare the tribes to organize and operate their own
educational systems.
D. To subsidize a long-range effort to train and certify Indian educators
for Indian schools.
E. To certify Indian programs for curriculum development and library
development .
F. To provide for a professional clearinghouse to keep education
Information, i.e., teacher availability, new curricula, and special
Information flowing from school to school and tribe to tribe.
G. To give professional Indian educators the opportunity to give regular
input on new educationalmethods and resources to the tribes, the tribes
in tucn can utilize these suggestions if they choose.
11. Congress shall provide, under the umbrella of the consolidated Indian agency
appropriate legislation for the administration and funding of improved off-
reservation boarding schools.
12. Funding would be used to define the goals and objectives for each O.R.B.S. Create
and academic emphais that fits the particular goals of each school.
1. A vocational/technical school
2. A school for the gifted with emphasis on academic training.
3. A school for special learning difficulties (Basic skills emphasized)
13. Juvenile corrections should be the responsibility of the tribe (s) and not
the O.R.B.S.
14. Hire sufficient diagnostic staff, a program and development specialist, and
curriculum development that is responsive to student needs both psychologically
and academically for each O.R.B.S.
15. Choose teaching and guidance personnel on the basis of ability to do the Job
rather than rank in civil service.
16. Give parents and community the opportunity to contribute ideas and participate
in school procedure.
17. Give the school advisory boards real decision power.
349
8. Set up funding structures to separate O.R.B.S. from other BIA funded schools.
9. Standardize accounting procedures and fiscal reports of all O.R.B.S.
0. Remove post-secondary schools run by the BIA from O.R.B.S. states so they
have the option to control: Staff, budget, programs, enrollment, and
student body.
1. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents for all
BIA schools (Haskell, SIPI, lAIA)
Participants strongly agreed with all the findings with the following comments:
a. Number 14. The question arose, "Would It be practical to hire all of
the mentioned personnel, and would they be all Indians?"
b. Number 17. What training would the advisory board receive to prepare
them to exercise wise authoratlve power.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :
1. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents
for all BIA schools. Including post-secondary schools.
2. Funding structures and accountability procedures should be standardized
for fast and efficient accounting and for educational research purposes.
Schools should follow the same elective process for advisory boards, and
board of regents. Schools should work together on meaningful research,
for example, student dropouts, new curriculum, and follow up studies
on students who attend Institutions of higher learning.
3. Many times people In the educational field lose sight of their original
objectives and begin to conceptualize, "What can I get out of the
system for self-gain?" Too many times the person tends to look for
personal gains rather than to view what Is the best way to reach the
Indian youth.
350
II. Higher Education
11. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents for
all BIA schools (Haskell, lAIA, SIPI).
12. Congress, through specific legislation will provide funding for scholarships
in three academic areas:
1. Vocational
2. Liberal arts
3. Graduate level.
13. Graduate level scholarship should take into account extra expenses such as
books, lab fees and the greater possibility graduate students will be narrled.
14. Scholarship funding is directed through both Indian organizations and tribes
which would distribute the money to eligible Indian students.
15. Each student who meets the requirements of Section 411 (A) (1) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 shall be entitled to a grant in an amount
computed under subsection (a) of subsection (1) .
16. Congress must enact legislation which would, under the consolidated
Indian agency, carry out a program for funding and administration of Indian
post-secondary schools.
17. Legislation such to include funds for more Indian owned and operated colleges
such that higher education is available to all Indians who desire it.
18. Legislation such to include funds to establish a number of institutions of
higher learning for interpreting and sustaining the culture, languages and
traditions of Indian people.
19. Legislation such to Include funds provided by the Federal government to any
Institution of higher learning that is educating Indian students (similar to JOM) .
20. Accreditation for Indian post-secondary institutions should be provided by an
Indian designed and organized board.
351 •
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
U 11 7 2 1
3 3 3 1
11 9 1
10 11 1 4.0
12 8 5 1
-440 O - 78 - 24
352
HIGHER EDUCATION/ADDITIONAL REACTION
As a student enrolled under Fine Arts at Arizona State University, I
strongly agree to granting money to students who wish to enter a
profession not usually funded by tribal or government scholarships.
III. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :
1. Concern for the education of children in urban areas.
2. Explicit definitions in funding controls.
353
Tribal Control
11. Tribal control at minimum could entail utilizing the tribal government
as a monitoring system for federal funds targeted for Indian education.
Dollars targeted specifically for Indian children, for example, JOM, would
not only pass through the tribe but the tribe could also direct how those
dollars were to be spent.
12. Where a local school system rejects trlbally determined educational priorities
for JOM and other target funds, those funds should be available to the tribe
for use in a program of its own.
13. In recognition that one year's funding may be an insufficient base to
establish an Independent program, there should be provision to allow
for carryover of previous year's funding.
lA. To facilitate the move toward Indian control of Indian education, trained
specialists will be needed. Programs for Indian people to direct Indian
control should be established.
15. Monies should be provided for programs to educate and prepare tribes to
organize and operate their own education (to the extent they wish) .
16. Monies should be provided to subsidize a long-range effort to train and
certify Indian educators for Indian schools.
17. Monies should be provided to establish training programs for teachers of
Indian students.
18. Monies should be provided to subsidize programs for curriculum development and
library development for Indian schools.
19. Monies should be provided to study and establish an accreditation system
for Indian schools.
20. Monies should be provided to study and establish standards for Indian schools.
354
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
7
UNDECIDED
3
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
L. 9
1
12. 6
15.
8
9
16.
9
9
17.
10
7
18.
10
9
19.
20.
6
6
12
13
2 1
1
355
TRIBAL CONTROL
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
1. Money should be provided for basic school operations.
2. Accounting systems should be set up for the tribes to account for
the monies they receive.
3. Congress pass a law that the Federal government pass In legislation
that Congress will continue to fund programs for Indian tribes if
they contract under P.L. 93-638.
356
REACTION BY GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS
357
Ms. Ida L. Jose, Chairperson
Papago Education Conmlttee
Ms. Jose represented the Papago Education Committee and the following
comments represent the opinion of her committee after their participation
In Workshop #5, Tribal Control.
The Issue of Tribal Control Is of main concern on the Papago Reservation.
The problem Is as follows:
The Papago Education Committee Is authorized by a Tribal Resolution to
be responsible and accountable for Tribal Education contracts. There
are two (2) main reasons why this Is Impossible to do;
1. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (Procurement Branch) has their own
"unwritten" rules that cannot be abided by anyone, which also conflict
with tribal contract statements.
2. The state does not recognize Tribal Sovereignty.
Our recommendations are:
1. That PL 93-638 be amended to Insure Tribal Control of all contracted
programs .
2. That tribes be given full authority and responsibility to determine
their own direction and policy, without Interference of the state and
Federal bureaucracies.
3. That Congress assure the Tribes of adequate funding for their
determined needs.
THE PAPAGO EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Ida L. Jose, Chairperson
Manuel Osequeda
Tony Chlco
Wlllard Juan
Archie Hendrick, Sr.
Sr. Katerl Cooper
358
Ms. Lena Begay
Central Curriculum Coordinator
Navajo Economic Opportunity Childhood Development Program
Ft. Defiance, Arizona
The main questions which should be asked regarding the establishment of
the AIPRC are:
Who appoints the Commission?
Why can't we be involved right from the first Instead of at the conclusion?
What impact will our recommendations have on the Commission's Report to
Congress?
The general findings were very vague, and they need to be clarified.
Pertaining to General Finding //I, Shift all Federal education programs from
OE and BIA to one administrative agency; what one administrative agency
are these programs to be shifted under? Who will be involved in the
shifting of these programs and who will have the control?
Pertaining to Finding #2, Shift control of Federal funds for Indian education
from state and local governments to tribal governments; is this to be
done with approval of tribal people or Individual groups?
As to Finding //3, Establish training programs for Indian teachers,
administrators, counselors and tribal advisors on education; who would
establish these training programs and where will the monies come from?
We must have assurances that the training programs are not funded for
one or two years and then discontinued. What we need instead of what
we have gotten in the past are long-range training programs to insure
that the benefits of the programs will be given the Indian peoples.
On Finding #4, The consolidated Indian agency would be required to design, in
conjunction with Indian people, education programs it establishes to respond
to the needs of Indian people; what is meant by "consolidated" Indian
agency? Is this in reference to the superagency in General Finding #1?
As to Finding #5, This agency and programs would require more efficient
administration and an accurate funding mechanism to assure that target
monies reach the tribes; this funding mechanism needs to be controlled
according to the needs of the tribes or the individual groups of people
who are requesting the funds.
Findings 6-10 are already in existence it appears but what we need is
a reaffirmation of these findings. Finding //lO, such a law is already in
existence but we need to work with the law now and we need to have it
enforced.
Of definite concern is the need to define "Indian."
We are making our recommendations, but we need the support of the American
Indian Policy Review Commission and of all the Indian people.
359
Mr. Virgil Free, Higher Education Director
Johnson O'Malley
Winnebago, Nebraska
The area which the Task Force of the Commission did not seem to get into
was funding accountability. We must be kept informed of the amount of
money that is going out and we need to be kept informed of where it is
going. We must abide by regulations and guidelines but OE and BIA do no
accounting to us. We must demand that OE and BIA report nationally to the
tribes at the national and the regional levels. We ask AIPRC to demand
that accounting also be done at the area and agency levels.
Mr. Albert Sinquah, Director
Education, Hopi Tribe
Oraibi, Arizona
My main concern is that there is no existing organization or group of
people responsible for seeing to it that the government is meeting the
requirements and guidelines of the programs. There needs to be an office
or a Concerns Bureau that we can contact for interpretation of the existing
laws. The interpretation of the policies vary at the local, area, regional,
and national levels. It is difficult to know or see what we are doing
because of this. The AIPRC should recommend the establishing of an
organization strictly for the interpretation of the laws.
360
Ms. Cynthia Cardona Workshop it3, "Itoited States Office of Education."
Osbom School District
Phoenix, Arizona
My main concerns center around the amount of confusion, misunderstanding, and
learning process involved with the various programs.
It seems that information is not received with sufficient time to study the
literature. Procedures are someimes somewhat intimidating. In many Instances
one is unclear as to how to utilize funding in the proper "legal" way.
The Public Laws and Acts are unclear to the majority of the participants
here at this session and to the participants vrithin the different programs.
How is this and other legislation to affect the urban Indian? There is
too much confusion in this area as it appears the urban Indian is not being
recognized.
We need to see statistics concerning the operations of the programs. How is
the money appropriated and how is it being utilized? How much of that money
actually trickles down to students?
361
Ms. Carol Kirk
Arizona State University Student
The following comments w ere made by Ms. Kirk after her participation in
Workshop /M, "State Role In Indian Education."
Concerning General Finding //I, Shift all Federal education programs from
OE and BIA to one administrative agency, the members of the workshop
may have been indecisive or negative because of two main concerns.
1. There was not enough information as to how OE and BIA were to be
unified. Perhaps the intention of the members was to either
agree or disagree and then make comments as to how either decision
would be implemented.
2. As pertaining to nearly all the items the participants tended to
disagree with the printed statements as the participants all
recognized tribal authority but did not specifically recognize
urban Indian groups.
The main concern with Items 7-10 was that these or at least some of
these General Findings were identified by participants to already be
existing policy. Negative or indecisive comments were made because it
was noted that the policies were already in effect.
My concern: Was the purpose of the questionnaire a reaffirmation or a
negation of general policies facing tribal sovereignty or was it intended
to address for specific changes in existing policy? The confusion
arose because it was unclear as whether we were disagreeing with the conditions
of the existing policy or recommending something new.
362
SUMMARY
The reaction presented above represents that of Individuals and groups
compiled In the procedure described. It does not necessarily represent
a consensus of the conference. No effort was made to Interpret any of
the data or change any of the comments. It Is raw data compiled within
limitations of a three-day conference.
However, the reaction does represent a sincere effort on the part of
those responding to be heard. We trust that the Input will be valuable
to the American Indian Policy Review Commission and that It will be a
part of the final report submitted to Congress.
363
APPENDIX A
18th ANNUAL INDIAN EDUCATION CONFERENCE PROGRAM
364
18th AlJilUAL I.iOIAiJ EDUCATIOi'J CODFEREiiCE
APRIL 13,14, & 15, 1977
MEMORIAL UinOil GUILDIIIG
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
THEflE :
"AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COmiSSION"--
SUI^IARY OF EDUCATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SPONSOR-
CENTER FOR INDIAN EDUCATIOIl
ARIZONA STATE UfilVERSITY
TEMPE, ARIZONA
DIRECTORS
OR. JOH;^ U. TIPPECONNIC, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR INDIAN EOUCATIOi!
MR. GEORGE A. GILL, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION
365
PROGRAI!
Wednesday Afternoon Session, April 13, 1977
12 :00 NOON
1:00 - 5:00 p.m. Workshop #1
1:00 - 2:00 p.m. Workshop #2
1:00 - 2:00 p.m. Workshop #3
2:00 - 3:15 p.m. Workshop #4
2:00 - 3:15 p.m. Workshop #5
3:15 - 3:30 p.m.
BREAK
3:30 - 5:00 p.m.
Workshop #6
(Repeat)
3:30 - 5:00 p.m.
Workshop #7
(Repeat)
Registration, Memorial Union Building
Arizona Room (Continuous throughout Conference]
HIEA Project Media, National Indian Education
Association; Minneapolis, i'linnesota
Ms. Rebecca Murray, Moderator
Cochise Room East, Memorial Union
Reapportionment & Census - State of Arizona
Legislature; Phoenix, Arizona
Representative Benjamin Hanley, Moderator
Cochise Room West, Memorial Union
Bilingual Education, Division of Bilingual
Education, State Department of Education;
Phoenix, Arizona
Ms. Gay Lawrence, lioderator
Arizona Room, Memorial Union
ilative American Materials Development Center
Albuquerque, Nev; ilexico
Mr. Cam Pfeiffer, r-ioderator
Arizona Room, Memorial Union
Indian Education Training, Inc.
Albuquerque, Uevi i Mexico
Mr. Fred Garcia, Moderator
Ms. Laura Tillman, Moderator
Cochise Room West, Memorial Union
ilative American Materials Development Center
Albuquerque, flew Mexico
Mr. Cam Pfeiffer, Moderator
Arizona Room, Memorial Union
Indian Education Training, Inc.
Albuquerque, flew Mexico
Mr. Fred Garcia, Moderator
f>1s. Laura Tillman, Moderator
Cochise Room West, Memorial Union
366
Thursday Morning Session. April 14, TJ77
7:30 a.m. Registration, Hemorial Union Building
8:30 - 10:00 a.m. Presiding: jr. John W. Tippeccnnic, Director
Center for Indian Education
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Uelcome: Dr. Morrison F. liarren. Director
I.D. Payne Laboratory
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Keynote
Address: Mr. Ernest L. Stevens, Director
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Washington, D.C.
"Introduction To The AIPRC"
Conference Procedures: Mr. George A. Gill
Assistant Professor of
Education
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
AliNOUiJCEtlENTS
10:00 - 10:15 a.m. BREAK - Reconvene in General Session for Education
Summary and Findings
10:15 - 11:30 a.,... Mr. Raymond C. Goetting, AIPRC Hember and Consultant
Laguna, rievv >iexico
"Findings and Recoimendations - Education"
American Indian Policy Reviov/ Commission
Mr. Charles Peone, AIPRC llember and Consultant
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
"Findings and Recommendations - Education"
American Indian Policy Review Commission
11:30 - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH BREAK - Reconvene in workshop of choice at
1:00 p.m.
367
Thursdaiy Afternoon Session. April 14. 1977
1:00 - 3:00 p.m. WORKSHOP SESS I Of JS
l/orkshop #1 "The Delivery System - BIA"
Mr. Garrison Tahmahkera, Moderator
l\r. Ray Goetting, Resource Person
Cochise Room East
Administering Educational Programs, Funding and Policy,
Educational Facilities, Curriculum, Student and School
Statistics.
Workshop #2 "iiigher Education"
Mr. Ron Houston, Moderator
fir. Ray Goetting, Resource Person
Cochise Room West
Administering Educational Programs, Funding and Policy,
Educational Facilities, Curriculum, Student and School
Statistics.
Workshop if3 ""United States Office of Education"
Mr. Guy Archambeau, ftoderator
Hr, Charles Peone, Resource Person
Coconino Room
Administering Educational Programs, Funding and Policy,
Educational Facilities, Curriculum, Student and School
Statistics.
Workshop #4 "State Role In Indian Education"
Dr. Larry Stout, tloderator
fir. Ernest Stevens, Resource Person
Arizona Room
Administering Educational Programs, Funding and Policy,
Educational Facilities, Curriculum, Student and School
Statistics.
Workshop #5 "Tribal Control"
Mr. Jack Gregory, Moderator
Mr. Ernest Stevens, Resource Person
Pinal Room
Administering Educational Programs, Funding and Policy,
Educational Facilities, Curriculum, .-tudent and School
Statistics.
3:00 - 3:15 p.m. BREAK
3:15 - 5:00 p.m. Workshops #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 reconvene in sane rooms for
finalization of reaction reports to findings.
5:00 p.m. RECESS - Reconvene in Arizona Room for final General
Session, Friday, 8:30 a.m., April 15, 1977.
-440 O - 78 - 25
368
Friday Homing Session, April 15. 1977
8:30 a.m. General Session
Arizona Room
Presentation of conference v/orkshop reaction position papers
and reconmondations to be submitted to American Indian Policy
Review Commission, Washington, D.C.
Presiding: Mr. Emerson Horace, Director
Bilingual Education
Sacaton Public Schools
Sacaton, Arizona
Mr. Guy Archambeau
Tuba City Public Schools
Tuba City, Arizona
10:00 - 10:15 a.m. uREAK
10:15 a.m. Reconvene in Arizona Room for continuation of
presentations.
12:00 Noon ADJOURNMENT
369
APPENDIX B
GENERAL FINDINGS OF AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
370
ASU, CtlJTER FOR INpi/JI EDUCATION
GETIERAL FINDINGS OF AIIERICAN IiIDIM POLICY REVIirVf C0>C1ISSI0M
1. Shift all Federal education programs from OE and BIA to one administrative
agency .
2. Shift control of Federal funds for Indian education from state and local
governments to tribal governments.
3. Establish training programs for Indian teachers, administrators, counselors
and tribal advisors on education.
A. The consolidated Indian agency would be required to design, in conjunction
with Indian people, education programs it establishes to respond to the
needs of Indian people.
5. This agency and programs would require more efficient administration and an
accurate funding mechanism to assure that target monies reached the tribes.
6. Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in
assuming the responsibility for control of education in accordance vdth
their desires.
Its to P.L. 874 and 815 such that: (1) the dollars directed to aid
schools educating Indian students be funneled through a tribal monitoring
system, than to the school, (2) a set-aside provision is made to cover costs
of tribal administration.
Amendments to P.L. 638 such that (1) a duly elected Board of Regents may
be recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to contract for
and administer post-secondary schools with a multi-tribal population;
(2) in case of multi-tribal elementary and secondary schools, a duly elected
Board of Regents indluding at least one representative from each tribe, be
recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to contract for
and administer those schools.
Amendments to P.L. 638 and JOII such that: (1) any dollars contracted for
the education of Indian children through P.L. 638 and JOtl would pass through
tribal monitoring system (2) in utilizing this contract or monitoring
pcwering with P.L. 638 or JOM a tribe may decide the extent to which it wishes
to control the educational system affecting its children. This decision runs
the gamut from total tribal ownership and control to utilization of the
tribal governitent only as a monitoring system, (3) if the tribes' option
to set up an organizational unit to monitor funds, a set-aside provision
should be made available to cover costs of tribal administration.
Amendments to all Indian education legislation such that: (1) the state or
local government not in compliance with agreements and contracts for Indian
education can be sued by the tribe in U.S. District Court or in a state court
of general jurisdiction, (2) the court may grant the plaintiff a temporary
restraining order, preliminary or permenent injunction or other order
including suspension, termination or repayment of funds or placing any further
payments in escrow pending the outcome of the litigation.
371
APPENDIX C
LIST OF ADDED TOPIC AREA FINDINGS
372
1. Congress will Initiate legislation for the funding and administration under
• consolidated Indian agency for programs:
A. To study and establish standards for Indian education and develop an
accre<!itatlon system for Indian schools.
B. To train non-Indians who teach and work with Indian children as an
interim measure until there are enough Indian educators.
C. To educate and prepare the tribes to organize and operate their own
educational systems.
D. To subsidize a long-range effort to train and certify Indian educators
for Indian schools.
E. To certify Indian programs for curriculum development and library
development .
r. To provide for a professional clearinghouse to keep education
information, i.e., teacher availability, new curricula, and special
information flowing from school to school and tribe to tribe.
G. To give professional Indian educators the opportunity to give regular
input on new educationalmethods and resources to the tribes, the tribes
in turn can utilize these suggestions If they choose.
11. Congress shall provide, under the umbrella of the consolidated Indian agency
appropriate legislation for the administration and funding of Improved off-
reservation boarding schools.
12. Funding would be used to define the goals and objectives for each O.R.B.S. Create
and academic emphals that fits the particular goals of each school.
1. A vocational/technical school
2. A school for the gifted with emphasis on academic training.
3. A school for special learning difficulties (Basic skills emphasized)
13. Juvenile corrections should be the responsibility of the tribe (s) and not
the O.R.B.S.
lA. Hire sufficient diagnostic staff, a program and development specialist, and
curriculum development that Is responsive to student needs both psychologically
and academically for each O.R.B.S.
15. Choose teaching and guidance personnel on the basis of ability to do the job
rather than rank in civil service.
16. Give parents and community the opportunity to contribute ideas and participate
In school procedure.
17. Give the school advisory boards real decision power.
373
Tribal Control
(See first 10 General Findings)
11. Tribal control at minimum could entail utilizing the tribal government
as a monitoring system for federal funds targeted for Indian education.
Dollars targeted specifically for Indian children, for example, JOM, would
not only pass through the tribe but the tribe could also direct how those
dollars were to be spent.
12. Where a local school system rejects tribally determined educational priorities
for JOM and other target funds, those funds should be available to the tribe
for use in a program of its own.
13. In recognition that one year's funding may be an insufficient base to
establish an independent program, there should be provision to allow
for carryover of previous year's funding.
14. To facilitate the move toward Indian control of Indian education, trained
specialists will be needed. Programs for Indian people to direct Indian
control should be established.
15. Monies should be provided for programs to educate and prepare tribes to
organize and operate their own education (to the extent they wish).
16. Monies should be provided to subsidize a long-range effort to train and
certify Indian educators for Indian schools.
17. Monies should be provided to establish training programs for teachers of
Indian students.
18. Monies should be provided to subsidize programs for curriculum development and
library development for Indian schools.
19. Monies should be provided to study and establish an accreditation system
for Indian schools.
20. >bnies should be provided to study and establish standards for Indian schools.
374
Higher Education
(See first 10 )
11. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents for
all BIA schools (Haskell, LAIA, SIPI).
12. Congress, through specific legislation will provide funding for scholarships
in three academic areas:
1. Vocational
2. Liberal arts
3. Graduate level.
13. Graduate level scholarship should take into account extra expenses such as
books, lab fees and the greater possibility graduate students will be married.
14. Scholarship funding is directed through both Indian organizations and tribes
which would distribute the money to eligible Indian students.
15. Each student who meets the requirements of Section 411 (A) (1) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 shall be entitled to a grant in an amount
computed under subsection (a) of subsection (1) .
.16. Congress must enact legislation which would, under the consolidated
Indian agency, carry out a program for funding and administration of Indian
post-secondary schools.
17. Legislation such to include funds for more Indian owned and operated colleges
such that higher education is available to all Indians who desire it.
18. Legislation such to include funds to establish a number of institutions of
higher learning for interpreting and sustaining the culture, languages and
traditions of Indian people.
19. Legislation such to Include funds provided by the Federal government to any
Institution of higher learning that is educating Indian students (similar to JOH) .
20. Accreditation for Indian post-secondary Institutions should be provided by an
Indian designed and organized board.
375
18. S«e up funding structures to separste O.R.B.S. froa other BIA funded schools.
19. Standardize accounting procedures and fiscal reports of all O.R.B.S.
20. Remove post-secondary schools run by the BIA from O.R.B.S. states so they
have the option to control: Staff, budget, programs, enrollment, and
student body.
21. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents for all
BIA schools (Haskell. SIPI, lAIA)
376
U.S.O.E.
(See first 10 General Findings)
377
STATES ROLE
(See first 10 General Findings)
378
APPENDIX D
nroiVIDUAL REACTION FOBM
379
INDIVIDUAL REACTION FORTIS
TOPIC
OCCUPATION
ORGAfllZATIOU
Recommendation:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
1C
17
18
19
20
SA
U
SA
U
SA
u
SA
U
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
SA
u
( Comments :
380
APPENDIX E
PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED DURING THE REACTION PRESENTATIONS
381
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
BOCKVILLE. MARYLAND 20852
INDIAN HE/
The Honorable James Abourezk
Chairman, American Indian Policy
Review Commission
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for extending to me the opportunity to comment
on the Tentative Final Report of the American Indian
Policy Review Commission. My comments are addressed to
several broad areas within which fall In the recommendations
associated with the health section of Chapter 8,
Social Services.
The scope and direction of the Federal Indian health
program are molded in large measure by laws (Including
appropriations acts), regulations, policies and other
guides made available by the Legislative and Executive
Branches relative to Indian health problems, and to
professional, support, and community self-determination
activities in the health field. The role of the Indian
Health Service is to administer the program consistent
with these guides. The majority of the recommendations
in the health section relate directly to actions by the
Congress and/or the Administration, and, therefore, are
beyond the commentary purview of this organization. Those
that recommend Executive Orders, Congressional consideration
of budgetary parameters. Congressional establishment of
organizational entitles, and those pertaining to other
Departments are illustrative examples. Even though these
types of recommendations are beyond our commentary purview,
Senator Abourezk, please be assured that the IHS will
always do its best to carry out its legislative, policy
and other mandates. In so doing, we shall, working in
partnership with the Indian communities and their leadership,
endeavor to be Imaginative in administering the health
program In ways calculated to obtain maximum value from
all resources with which IHS is entrusted in order to
combat the massive health problems confronting American
Indians and Alaska Natives.
382
Some recommendations pertain to recent public laws. I
am happy to report that we have, in fact, made every
effort to Involve Indian people and Indian organizations
In working toward successful Implementation of Public
Law 94-437. Recently, In testimony, I Indicated that,
up to that date, IHS had some 110 meetings with Indians In
about 50 locations throughout the Nation regarding PL 94-437
activities. Including regulations. Intensive communications
will continue regarding regulations and their Implementation,
A similar format has been followed In connection with
Public Law 93-638. It Is my personal conviction that these
close, cooperative efforts are Indispensable to any and
all aspects of program management, as well as being
consistent with the fundamentals of self-determination
as outlined In the mandates contained In PL 93-638 and In
PL 94-437.
One recommendation specifically pertains to alcoholism
projects. As indicated above, IHS will continue to do its
best to assure that its work is carried out to the best
of our ability, appropriate to the needs and desires of
the Indians, and within the framework of our authorities
and resources, present and future.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to read the
Tentative Final Report , and for your Invitation to comment
thereupon.
Sincerely yours,
X- ■•"' ,-
v_^ : /
Emery^^. Johnson, M. D.
Assistant Surgeon General
Director, Indian Health Service
383
INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION
EVALUATION OF THE TENTATIVE FINAL REPORT
of the
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION
NAME: Bette Crouse Mele, President
Elaine P. Lariviere, Administrator
ORGANIZATION: Indian Rights Association, founded 1882, non-
profit organization
ADDRESS: 1505 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102
PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
We support the following recommendations because we believe the
survival of American Indian communities depends on such correc-
tive measures.
1. TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
Chapter 5 , Paragraph 1 , Page 5-29
In the section beginning with the words "That the long term
objective of Federal-Indian policy should be the development..
2. TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
Chapter 5, #2, Page 5-52
In the section beginning with the words "That Section 16 of
the Indian Reorganization Act..."
3. TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
Chapter 5, #3, Page 5-53
In the section beginning with the words "That Section 2 of .
Title 25, U.S. Code, should be amended..."
4. FEDERAL - INDIAN TRUST RELATIONS
Chapter 4, III A, #1-4, Pages 4-14, 4-15
In the section beginning with the words "In order to clarify
and improve the administration of the Federal trust. . . "
5. FEDERAL - INDIAN TRUST RELATIONS
Chapter 4, III B, #1-4, Pages 4-15, 4-16
In the section beginning with the words "Indian Trust Rights
Impact Statement. Before any agency takes action..."
6. FEDERAL - INDIAN TRUST RELATIONS
Chapter 4, III D, #1-6
In the section beginning with the words "Legal Representation
for Indians. In order to diminish the conflict of interest...
93-440 O - 78 - 26
384
7. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
Chapter 6, Page 131, Entire Page
In the section beginning with the words "The Commission rec-
ommends that: 1. The President submit to Congress..."
8. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
Chapter 6, Page 137, Last Paragraph
In the section beginning with the words "The Commission
recommends that: Congress establish permanent standing or
special select committees for Indian affairs..."
9. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 7, Paragraph 1 , Page 7-34
In the section beginning with the words "Congress should appro-
priate sufficient funds..."
10. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 7, Pages 7-35, 7-36, #1-5
In the section beginning with the words "To provide solutions
for the debilitating problems..."
11. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 7, Paragraph 4, Page 7-41
In the section beginning with the words "The Secretary of the
Interior should allow the tribes to develop..."
RECOMMENDATIONS WITH WHICH THE INDIAN RIGHTS
ASSOCIATION DISAGREES
1. WATER RIGHTS
The issue of water rights is an urgent issue. The recommenda-
tions of the American Indian Policy Review Commission are in-
adequate. More input is needed from water experts, and more
emphasis must be placed on the importance of water to the
viability of Indian reservations.
2. WATER RIGHTS
Hydrology reports and water resource inventories should be
scrutinized for partiality. We believe that all are prejudiced
and do not consider Winters Doctrine rights, present water
flow, and future needs of Indian communities - with perhaps
the exception of the Morrison-Merrill report done for the
Navajo and suppressed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
3. SEPARATE DISSENTING VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN LLOYD MEEDS
We disagree with the following recommendations because they
remove from Indians the power to control territory under their
legal title, to administer justice, to levy taxes essential to
self-sufficiency, and to use resources that are legally theirs.
385
Page kz, #6
In the section beginning with the words "I recommend that
Congress enact legislation directly prohibiting. . . "
Page 57, #5
In the section beginning with the words "I recommend that
Congress enact legislation providing that states shall have
the same power to levy taxes..."
Page 88, Paragraph 2
In the section beginning with the words "I would resolve all
doubts by recommending to the Congress the enactment of a
statute of limitations..."
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
by Bette Crouse Mele
The Indian Rights Association, founded in 1882, and having
advocated the Dawes Act in order to assist the Indian people in
sxiTviving a disastrous period of colonization and its attendant
greed for land and destruction of Indian peoples, acknowledges the
destructive impact of the Dawes Act and the allotment of Indian
lands on Indian survival. The plan did not work out and has led
to serious problems of jurisdiction and exploitation. Having
gotten what they wanted back in 1887, the non- Indian came to be-
lieve that Indigins are an expendable resource and that what is
Indian is rightfully theirs. That mentality prevails today in the
fonn of backlash organizations all fired up to press politicians
for what they consider rightfully theirs. The cximate today is
the climate that prevailed in the 1880's when Congress acted under
pressure of popular public opinion instead of fulfilling its
trust responsibility to the Indian people by protecting them from
encroachments on their lands and fulfilling treaty obligations.
The time is long overdue to advocate Indian Federal Policy instead
of Federal Indian Policy. We see the purpose of the Commission to
present the Indian position in the effort to correct the present
inequities that Indians suffer as a result of long neglect of their
legal status.
DO YOU FEEL THE CONTENT OF THE REPORT PROVipES AN ACCURATE AND USE-
FIjL PICTURE~ nF THE SITUATION
Yes, it provides an accvirate and useful pictvire, considering the
time and financial limitations under which the Commission worked.
386
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, DC. 20240
MAY 4 - 197?
Honorable James Abourezk
Chairman, American Indian Policy
Review Commission
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for furnishing this Department, and particularly the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, with copies of the draft of the final
report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. We are
also grateful for your invitation to provide input involving our
reaction to the draft for consideration by your Commission in
arriving at the completed product.
In response to your request, we have given the report wide
distribution among the Bureau's field staff, and they are
currently studying it with the request to forward to us their
thoughts and reactions.
After due deliberation, however, it has been respectfully
determined by this Department to decline to provide official
comment on the report at this time. This position is consistent
with that which has been recently presented in testimony before
several committees of the Congress. It stems in part from our
desire to in no way inhibit the Policy Review Commission in
reporting its findings as it sees them. It also admittedly
reflects our desire for additional time to fully measure the
contents of the report and not prematurely react to it while we
are still in the transition process and do not as yet fully have
this Administration's Indian leadership on board. This is
particularly true in respect to the vacancy of the proposed
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. Further, we would like
at this time to avoid taking an official position which might in
any way preempt tribes across the country from arriving at their
independent judgments concerning the report.
In closing, we are grateful for your consideration in sharing
the draft with us and shall be appreciative of your understanding
387
of our position in this matter. We look forward to working further
with you in responding to the finalized report.
Sincerely,
James A. Joseph
Under Secretary
388
K
,.^<*t<^-
389
^'<.
<<-,;. I
-^)vo t?^ '^o-'iiyp^j <^t<.Lcs^ .•t_t^cw_i^ .^iLvwc i,-,^
//-ILt^ ^'i-lC. LL'^L-^ A'^U^- ^^lX.4-J: <.^<^~U^ ^d-CLf u^ .^
C'>-/1*. i^ ^ L-C -:» '^'- ''-A.- -X.<-itL ^^^d cL/. C L C- i (■ L,,>
390
C^l^l^-^^^Cift.*^ V^C^C^^V r»-'tc'C{f^ /u^-ttM-^-CC
391
Meeds Attacks
Move for More
Indian Powers
By W. DALE NELSON
WASHINGTON - (AP) - Over a
vigorous dissent by Washington Rep.
Lloyd Meeds, a congressional com-
mission will recommend this week
that Indian tribes eventually be given
increased legal powers over both In-
dians and non-Indians.
"Indian tribes are governments,"
says the report by the two-year-old
American Indian Policy Review Com-
mission. "The federal policy must ac-
cept the position that the supervisory
authority it asseiis must be limited
and flexible."
In his 100-page dissent, Meeds, vice
chairman of the commission, calls the
900-page repoit "one-sided advocacy"
seeking to "convert a romantic politi-
cal notion into a legal doctrine." He
adds;
"Doing justice by Indians does not
require doing injustices to non-Indi-
ans.
"American Indian tribes are not a
third set of governments in the
American federal system. They are
not sovereigns.
"If Congress should ever think it
wise to give Indian peoples experi-
ence in government by letting them
practice on non-members, I predict
we will swiftly be set straight by the
vast majority of our constituents."
Before his election to Congress in
1964, Meeds served as deputy prose-
cutor and prosecutor in Snohomish
County which includes Indian reserva-
tion land.
The commission, created by Con-
gress in 1975. is made up of five
Indians and six members of Con-
gress.
Its report, due Tuesday, says tribal
powers "spring from the tribe's own
inherent sovereignty and can be di-
minished only by express federal,
not state, action." It says Indian
sovereignty is "of the highest legal
standing."
Meeds argues that this "doctrine
of inherent tribal sovereignty" has
Back Page, Column 1
392
Meeds Attacks Proposal
For More Indian Powers
From Page A-1
been rejected repeatedly by the Su-
preme Court.
At a meeting Friday, Sen. Jajnes
Abourezk, D-S.D., chairman of the
commission, argued Meeds was dis-
senting to things which the report
does not say. Abourezk said no one
denies that the sovereignty of the
tribes is limited by the power of
Congress.
The commission recommends that
federal policy be aimed at "aiding
the tribes in achievement of fully
functioning governments exercising
primary governmental authority with-
in • the boundaries of the respective
reservations.
"This authority would include the
power to adjudicate civil and crimi-
nal matters, to regulate land use, to
regulate natural resources such as
fish and game and water rights, to
issue business licenses, to impose tax-
es, and to do any and all of those
things which all local governments
within the United States are presently
doing."
The commission recommends
against "a broad legislative solution"
to Indian jurisdictional disputes at
this time but adds that "tlie growth
and development of tribal government
into fully functioning governments
necessarily encompasses the exercise
of some tribal jurisdiction over non-
Indian people and property within
reservation boundaries."
"I disagree, as I think the vast
majority of the American people
would disagree," Meeds said in his
dissent.
"I recommend that Congress enact
legislation directly prohibiting Indian
courts from exercising criminal juris-
diction over any person, whether
Indian or non-Indian, who is not a
member of the Indian tribe, which
operates the court in question."
The Washington congressman made
a similar recommendation with re-
gard to civil courts, except when a
non-Indian defendant "expressly and
voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction
of the tribal court."
The report says the Bureau of Indi-
an Affairs suffers "a notable absence
of managerial and organizational ca-
pacity" and the Department of Jus-
tice has conflicts of interest which
"preclude adequate legal representa-
tion of Indian trust interests." It rec-
ommends a cabinet-level department
or independent agency incorporating
all government programs affecting In-
dians. >
It proposes that control of Indian
education be shifted from state and
local government to tribal govern-
ments.
In a proposed section to be voted
upon tomorrow, it would also call for
exemption of Indians on their reser-
vations from state gasoline taxes and
exemption of leased Indian lands
from state mineral taxes.
The same proposed section would
provide that "all federal programs
designed to benefit Indian people or
tribes be given liberal interpretation
in finding the intent of Congress to
exempt them from federal taxation."
393
QICnHeb ^lalesi ^erxale
WASHINGTON. DC. 20310
June 1, 1977
The Honorable James Abourezk
Chairman
Select Committee on Indian Affairs
1105 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C.
Dear Jim:
It was recently called to my attention that the American
Indian Policy Review Coimiission has recommended to Congress that all
native American tribes who have yet to be federally recognized
receive such recognition.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for
the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Marksville, Louisiana, and the Houma
Tribe of Dulac and Galliano in their bids for recognition. I hope
you will take my support into consideration and that both tribes
will be successful in achieving recognition.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely
J ./Be
u/ite
J. /Bennfew: Johnston
u/ited States Senator
JBJ:Hbb
394
UNIVERSiry OF CAUFORNIA, BERKELEY
' DAvn • nvDn • um anccu •
BMOLET, CALIFORNIA M7S0
April 22, 1977
Senator James S. Abourezk
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2d and D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Tentative final report
of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. I found the report
very Informative, It compiles a significant amt it of factual material
that sheds light on the historical background of the relationship of
American Indian tribes to the United States government and the con-
temporary status of those tribes.
There are several specific points in the report that I would like
to comment on. One concerns the status of the Indian Civil Rights Act
of 1968. Many Indian people and also non= Indian lawyers that I have
talked to consider that the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 is an in-
fringement on the concept c: tribal sovereignty. The report suggests
that limitations be placed on the exercise of feaeral court jurisdiction
in cases brought under the Civil Rights Act, and if the Act is to con-
tinue In force, those limitations must certainly be adhered to in order
to protect the integrity of Indian court systems. I would emphasize
the point made in connection with the discussion of , Ltibal courts —
that they are in a state of evolution and ire becoming increasingly
sophisticated in areas of administration of justice where they may have
been less prepared in the past. Indian people must also be recognized
as being able to exercise sound and intelligent judgment as other
Americans are given credit for that capacity. There are no inherent
cultural limitations on the exercise of full judicial powers to assure
justice In an Indian community. I would urge that as part of a long
range policy, (Congress look to the repeal of the Indian Civil Rights Act
of 1968.
In Che area of education, I have personal concerns about the
recommendations of the Commission in Section 8 of the report. As a
teacher in a University setting, specifically Ir, the Native .American
Studies program at the University of California at Berkeley, I am aware
395
of many of the strengths and also of the limitations of higher education
in relation to Indian people. The recommendation of the Commission In
the area of higher education — that funds be allocated for the develop-
ment of more Indian controlled colleges on or near reservations — seems
to me an unproductive use of funds unless the nature of those colleges
is very clearly defined. I say this not becausq I feel that Indians
should not have access to college level education but because the feasi-
bility of establishing a network of Indian institutions of higher edu-
cation is very low. Even in a long range plan, Indian people would
probably not find It possible to obtain the staff necessary to operate
such colleges. The teaching of culture and language courses can certainly
be done by community people who do not have the typical credentials
demanded by a non-Indian institution. But the skills that Indian people
usually demand from a college education are those at a professional
level that will allow those people to interact effectively with agencies
of the federal government and with non-Indian professionals. Since
Indian people with professional level college training and skills are so
few in number, it would be virtually impossible to attract a large
enough number of them from professional employment into teaching in order
to staff high quality professionally oriented programs at Indian colleges.
Even if those Indian colleges are certified by an Indian controlled
accreditation agency, as is suggested, that accreditation would not
necessarily be accepted by general accrediting agencies, and the degrees
from those colleges would not allow their holders to interact effectively
with the non-Indian world. If there is any way to make college education
more accessible to INdians, it is in the area of financial aids, i.e.,
more scholarships and more effectively administered scholarship programs
in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I must point out that I am distinguish-
ing college education from purely vocational or purely culture-oriented
education. I think that Indian controlled colleges can exist where they
offer training at the vocational level for career opportunities and where
courses in language and culture are offered at the personal improvement
level. I do not think that Indian controlled colleges can truly pro-
gress to the level of offering four year professional degrees that will
equip their graduates to deal effectively with non-Indian communities so
as to obtain the greatest benefits for Indian communities.
Another point raised in the report is that Indians are often forced
to seek services through federal domestic assistance programs that are
administered through state agencies — thus subjecting Indians to rules
and restrictions imposed by states. I have been a member for the past
two years of a government advisory committee, the National Community
Education Advisory Council, which advises the U.S. Office of Education on
the implementation of the Community Schools Act (a special amendment to
the Elementary and Secondary School Act) that was passed in 197A. The
Act provides funding for programs above and beyond the regular school pro-
gram. Those programs are intended to meet specific community based needs
or desires. The Act designates Local or State Educational Agencies (as
defined in E.S.E.A.) as eligible applicants. Since Indian tribes and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs do not fall under this definition, Indian controlled
schools are excluded from the provisions of this act. The sum of money
396
available for the Community Schools Act Is snail ($3.5 million In fiscal
year 1977) and the number of applicants possible Is very large. Some
people (notably Congressman Meeds, with whom I have corresponded about
this matter) , feel that adding Indian tribes and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs as potential grantees would simply be adding more people to an
already too large pool of potential applicants. Another argument that has
been raised is that Indians who attend public schools can be served through
their local schools (although local public school districts are not always
sympathetic to local Indian people) . If Indian people in communities that
are predominantly Indian make requests through local public school districts
they face the situation of being bound by state regulations or procedures
that might affect the success of their request. Given the inadequate bud-
get of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet all of the basic educational
needs of Indian people, it would seem that Indian people ought to be
eligible for whatever supplemental funding they can generate. The Com-
missioner of Education and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs have agreed
in principle that it would be desirable to include Indian tribes and
the Bureau in the language in the Community Schools Act that defines
eligible applicants. The Bureau could certainly provide some of the
matching funds that the community Schools Act requires of its grantees,
and Dr. William Demmert, director of Education for the Bureau, told me in
a personal conversation that the Bureau was making some commitment to
community education by including facilities for community meetings and
activities in its plans for new school buildings. I would point out that
the matter of the Community Schools Act is an example of the way in which
Indians are overlooked in the process of drawing up legislation in the
Congress. I would suggest a policy to Congress — that it consider whether
Indians can be included in the language defining recipients of benefits
of all social service and educational legislation. This policy would
certainly seem to be consistent with the intent of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Improvement Act.
Finally, I feel compelled to comment upon Congressman Meeds' dissent-
ing view to the Commission's report. He accuses the report of taking an
advocacy position in regard to Indians because it operates from the
premise that Indian tribes are sovereign entitles. He denies the legiti-
macy of the report because it works from this basic premise. He denies
the validity of that premise by simply interpreting much of the same
evidence presented in the report from his own viewpoint, rather than
offering significant new evidence to contradict the findings of the Com-
mission. He is proceeding only from his own assumption concerning sover-
eignty. In the past American Indians were subjected to policy that was
based upon the assumption that Indians were not distinct entitles from
the United States. The fact was overlooked that Indian tribes were not
signatories to the U.S. Constitution. If Congressman Meeds denies the
right of Indian tribes to assume jurisdiction over non-Indians on reser-
vations because that would constitute lack of consent of those governed,
he must also recognize that Indian tribes have been subjected to a long
historical process of exactly that kind of treatment. This point is not
necessarily to asset the specific right of Indian tribal jurisdiction over
397
non-Indians but to point out one of the seeming contradictions in Con-
gressman Meeds' position. I feel that the Commission's report does an
excellent job of pointout out the historical factors influencing past
Indian policy. If the influence on policy now can be the informed
opinions of Indian people, then Indian tribes can begin to assert that
sovereignty that inheres to them as the original inhabitants of this
country.
Clara Sue Kidwell
Associate Professor
BOX 172
KODIAK.ALASKA 99615
PHONE (907)486-5726
398
KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASS OCIATIO N
April 15, 1977
The Honorable James S. Abourezk re: aiPRC's tentative Final Report
Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2D & D Streets, SW
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk and Committee Members :
The following is a tentative report to be presented at the Kodiak
Area Native Association Annual Membership Meeting, April 27, 1977.
A final report shall follow after the Annual Meeting.
This document represents the list of recommendations developed by the
Review Committee of The Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) Board of
Directors, who met on April 5-7, 1977. The Committee felt that the
peculiar concerns and problems of Alaskan Natives , resulting from their
separate history and the recent enactment of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act should be made known to the American Indian Policy Review
Commission, prior to the submission of its report to the United States
Congress.
It is the position of the Committee that the Findings and Recommendations
contained in Chapter 12 of the Commission's report governing the special
circumstances of Alaskan Natives is on balance, a well considered and
appropriate statement. Additionally, the findings and recommendations
contained in the main body of the report are likewise accepted and sup-
ported. Accordingly the Board of Directors of KANA endorses the Commi-
ssion's findings and recommendations, subject to such further
qualifications and additions as hereafter set forth.
1. Because of the uncertainty regarding the construction of the Land
Claims Legislation, it is now difficult to determine to what extent
Alaska Natives have the same status and relational problems as do
outside tribes. Certainly a number of those problems are the same
or similar. But there is no question that the problems of Native
status in Alaska and the relationship of Alaska Natives with the gov-
ernment and private persons will be shaped by the amendment, or lack
of amendment, to the Land Claims legislation, as well as its inter-
pretation.
2. In the Kodiak area private individuals, including Native Alaskans
themselves, do not clearly distinguish between the regional profit
making corporation, (Koniag, Inc.), the non-profit association
(KANA) , individual village corporations established by the Act,
and municipal governments associated with particular rural areas.
399
3. It is the Native People of the Kodiak area and not the government
who can and should decide who comprise the various tribes associa-
ted with the area, irrespective of any determinations to the
contrary by the Secretary of the Interior in conjunction with the
administration of the Land Claims Act.
4. The Land Claims Legislation recognized groupings of Alaskan Natives
by geographic area, but does not necessarily overlap with the tra-
ditional ethnic groupings of Alaska Native people.
5. Federal and state laws should generally apply equally to American
Indian people, irrespective of whether individuals reside in reser-
vations or in the general community, and irrespective of whether the
government deems certain tribes to have "adequately" developed govern-
mental structures.
6. Both the lack of a clear definition of "tribe" and related words in
the Indian Self Determination and Educational Assistance Act, and
similar acts, and the failure to develop clear administrative stand-
ards for interpreting the acts have impeded their legislative intent
and the distribuation of benefits that Congress envisioned in passing
the laws .
7. These definitional problems pertain to the question: "With what
entity should the federal government deal in transmitting benefits
and responsibilities under the legisilation?" We recommend now that
KANA as a larger umbrella organization of the Kodiak tribes, as a
repository of sovereign tribal power, (and because it has thus far
developed administrative expertise), be the primary recipient of
federal funds designed to be used for service and grant oriented
programs. Federal grants, such as money to construct community
halls or health clinics, because they are tied to a specific pur-
pose will often be channeled to village tribal entities by KANA
when village concerns and individuality can be more clearly expres-
sed through basic tribal structures. Decisions as to when to involve
specific tribal entities in the control of a particular grant can be
made effectively by the KANA board because it is composed of a repre-
sentative from each of the tribal entities in the area, and each
board member is directly accountable to his or her specific tribe.
8. Municipal governments and Corporations (both regional and village)
that have been set up under the land claims settlement act are inap-
propriate groups to be labeled "tribe" because of their potential
for non-Native control. If it is not recognized that village cor-
porations are not the same as sovereign tribal entities, there is a
substantial possibility that at the end of the 20 year period of
"inalienability" of land claims stock, many persons will view Alaskan
Natives as terminated as a separate sovereign people through assimi-
lation into the corporate mainstream of American business affairs.
9. It is essential to recognize now that the Land Claims legislation may
have as a purpose the termination of Native people as sovereign per-
93-440 O - 78 - 27
400
sons in a larger society. Accordingly, we recognize ourselves as
being sovereign and the federal government must also recognize our
sovereignty.
10. The status of Alaska Natives is in reality tied to the interpretation
given the Land Claims Act, and to whether it is viewed as a device to
effect termination of Alaska Natives as tribal members.
11. There are a substantial number of Native Alaskans who do not view the
Land Claims Settlement as terminating their aboriginal rights to the
land because the process by which the Land Claims Act was approved did
not involve the representative approval of Alaska's Native People
with full knowledge of the terms and potential effects of the act. No
matter what legislation is passed by Congress, the Alaskan Native
people remain in control of their land and their lives and thus their
sovereignty. To the extent that they accept the land, money, and
programs of the federal government, they accept them as a sovereign
equal in stature to the federal government.
12. Findings and Recommendations of the American Indian Policy Review
Commission Report pertaining to the need for land claims supplemental
legislation were affirmed in full as follows:
Findings: 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14 through pages 12-29 through 12-30.
Recommendations: 3-7, 9, & 12 on pages 12-31 through 12-34.
13. The federal government's "definition" of h Native blood to qualify
for federal social and welfare programs and to become enrolled under
the Land Claims Act, exemplifies its usurpation of Alaskan Natives'
sovereign right to determine their own status.
14. It is essential that provision be made for the government to reimburse
Native Alaskans when litigation is necessary to protect their rights;
otherwise a large portion of the settlement monies will continue to
end up with lawyers and other professionals, rather than with the in-
tended beneficiaries.
15. Whether or not attorney's fees are made recoverable by statute
through amendment to the Land Claims legislation, it is generally in
the interest of Alaska Natives to resolve a large number of the issues
presented by the AIPRC findings and these recommendations through
federal legislation, rather than through litigation.
16. Land Claims legislation purported to substitute established rights to
approximately 40 million acres of land for unliquidated aboriginal
title. But even viewing the legislation most favorable towards the
federal government, it was an exchange of equal value. Thus it should
not and can not result in the diminution of social services which are
traditionally the federal government's responsibility, and which re-
main desperately needed by Alaskan Natives. They must remain elegible
401
to receive the benefits of existing and future legislation to promote
Indian development and welfare.
L7. Even though Kodiak Area Natives are not directly impacted by the D-2
issue, we feel it is critical to take a pro-subsistence stand. It
is vital to the subsistence life style of Alaskan Natives who retain
it, that large areas of land be undisturbed if subsistence hunting,
trapping, collecting and fishing are to remain viable. The federal
government and the state government must recognize this in developing
legislation and administrative regulations pertaining to the land not
conveyed directly to Alaskan Natives, or to the corporations under
the act.
L8. Federal legislation impacting Native subsistence uses such as the
Marine Mammal Protection Act needs to be studied to develop a unifonn
policy to protect Native subsistence uses as a first priority. Con-
gress should consider legislation to guarantee that states do not have
authority to infringe on Native hunting, fishing, and other subsis-
tence uses.
L9. Various alternatives should now be considered with regard to the
eventual taxation of lands conveyed under the act. There is no
reason why all the lands - some of which will end up in individual
ownership - must have the same tax incidents. Similarly, various
alternatives must be considered as to when taxation should begin;
20 years after passage of the Act, 20 or more years after actual con-
veyance and permanent exempt status are all possibilities. In any
case, extension of the current exemption must be considered immedia-
tely to assure informed and orderly planning. The commission's rec-
ommendations that land which is not leased can regain such exempt
status if it is no longer productive of income, must be considered
seriously.
20. Identical concerns are presented by the prospective alienability of
stock under the Land Claims Act. It is our position that here too,
some extension of time past the 1991 deadline is necessary due to
the delay in the conveyance of land to the village and regional cor-
porations. Immediate attention should be devoted to the study, of
these problems rather than delaying their consideration until not
later than 1989 (see recommendation 11, page 12-34) .
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these recommendations on the
Final Report.
Sincerely,
KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION
Henry F. Eaton, President
^rv^ujd^.^^XcM^^
Frank R, Peterson
FRP:lb Executive Director
cc: Board of Directors
402
KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION
BOX 172
KODIAK.ALASKA 99615
PHONE: (907) 486-5726
May 2, 1977
The Honorable James S. Abourezk
Chairman
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2d S. D Streets, SW
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk:
On behalf of the members, directors and staff of the Kodiak Area Native
Association, I wish to submit herewith KANA's Convention Resolution No.
77 C-7 and the final review comments to the Tentative Final Report of
the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Please be apprised that
these comments were developed by review of the Tentative Final Report
in its entirety by the board of directors, a review committee of the
board and the Convention Resolutions Committee prior to consideration
by the membership in convention on April 27, 1977.
You are hereby respectfully requested to add the attached resolution.
Number 77 C-7, with the twenty enumerated comments to the Final Report
of the American Indian Policy Review Commission prior to its submission
to the U. S. Congress.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the development
and refinement of an historic document by the Commissioners, task force
groups and staff of the AIPRC.
Sincerely,
KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION
;on. President
•"rank R. Peterson
Executive Director
FRP:lb
cc: Senator Ted Stevens
Senator Mike Gravel
Congressman Don Young
Commissioner John Borbridge, Jr.
Byron Mallott, President, AFN
Board of Directors
Tundra Times
Matt Jamin
Enc: As Stated
403
KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASS OCIATION
BOX 172
KODIAK, ALASKA 99615
PHONE: (907) 486-5726
RESOLUTION NO. 7 7 C-7
Response to the American Indian Policy Review Conunission Report
WHEREAS, the Kodiak Area Native Association has been asked by the
American Indian Policy Review Commission to review the Com-
mission's Tentative Report to Congress; and
WHEREAS, the Kodiak Area Native Association Board of Directors has
met for three days to consider the Commission's report and
has developed its own findings and recommendations to sup-
plement those of the Commission; and
the Board has generally accepted
Commission; and
the recommendations of the
WHEREAS, the Board has presented its own recommendations to the KANA
membership on April 26 & April 27 for final review at the
annual membership meeting and presented its tentative views
to the commission on April 15; and
WHEREAS, the membership has agreed that the following recommendations
are accepted as the findings and recommendations to the
American Indian Policy Review Commission;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the attached findings and recom-
mendations are adopted as the response of the Kodiak Area
Native Association to the Report of the American Indian
Policy Commission.
Dated this
day of y!^,/
April 27, 1977 Convention Resolution: Do Pass
404
KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION
BOX 172
KODIAK.ALASKA 99615
PHONE: (907)486-5726
FINAL COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
ON THE
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION'S TENTATIVE FINAL REPORT
FROM THE
KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION
April 27, 1977
The following is the final review comments considered and adopted by
the Kodiak Area Native Association Annual Membership Meeting, April
27, 1977.
This document represents the list of recommendations developed by the
Review Committee of the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) Board
of Directors, who met on April 5-7, 1977 and the membership in conven-
tion April 26 & 27, 1977. The Committee felt that the peculiar concerns
and problems of Alaskan Natives, resulting from their separate history
and the recent enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
should be made known to the American Indian Policy Review Commission,
prior to the submission of its report to the United States Congress.
It is the position of the Kodiak Area Native Association that the Find-
ings and Recommendations contained in Chapter 12 of the Commission's
report governing the special circumstances of Alaskan Natives is on
balance, a well considered and appropriate statement. Additionally,
the findings and recommendations contained in the main body of the
report are likewise accepted and supported. Accordingly the KANA en-
dorses the Commission's findings and recommendations with the following
additional comments and recommendations :
1. Because of the uncertainty regarding the construction of the Land
Claims Legislation, it is now difficult to determine to what extent
Alaska Natives have the same status and relational problems as do
outside tribes. Certainly a number of those problems are the same
or similar. But there is no question that the problems of Native
status in Alaska and the relationship of Alaska Natives with the
government and private persons will be shaped by the amendment, or
lack of amendment, to the Land Claims legislation, as well as its
interpretation.
2. In the Kodiak area private individuals, including Native Alaskans
themselves, do not clearly distinguish between the regional profit
making corporation, (Koniag, Inc.), the non-profit association
(KANA) , individual village corporations established by the Act,
and municipal governments associated with particular rural areas.
405
3. It is the Native People of the Kodiak area and not the government
who can and should decide who comprise the various tribes associa-
ted with the area, irrespective of any determinations to the
contrary by the Secretary of the Interior in conjunction with the
administration of the Land Claims Act.
4. The Land Claims Legislation recognized groupings of Alaskan natives
by geographic area, but does not necessarily overlap with the tra-
ditional ethnic groupings of Alaska Native people.
5. Federal and state laws should generally apply equally to American
Indian people, irrespective of whether individuals reside in reser-
vations or in the general community, and irrespective of whether
the government deems certain tribes to have "adequately" developed
governmental structures.
6. Both the lack of a clear definition of "tribe" and related words in
the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, and
similar acts, and the failure to develop clear administrative stand-
ards for interpreting the acts have impeded their legislative intent
and the distribution of benefits that Congress envisioned in passing
the laws.
7. These definitional problems pertain to the question: "With what
entity should the federal government deal in transmitting benefits
and responsibilities under the legislation?" We recommend now that
KANA as a larger umbrella organization of the Kodiak tribes, as a
repository of sovereign tribal power, (and because it has thus far
developed administrative expertise) , be the primary recipient of
federal funds designed to be used for service and grant oriented
programs. Federal grants, such as money to construct community
halls or health clinics, because they are tied to a specific pur-
pose will often be channeled to village tribal entities by KANA
when village concerns and individuality can be more clearly expres-
sed through basic tribal structures. Decisions as to when to involve
specific tribal entities in the control of a particular grant can be
made effectively by the KANA board because it is composed of a repre-
sentative from each of the tribal entities in the area, and each
board member is directly accountable to his or her specific tribe.
8. Municipal governments and Corporations (both regional and village)
that have been set up under the land claims settlement act are inap-
propriate groups to be Icibeled "tribe" because of their potential
for non-Native control. If it is not recognized that village cor-
porations are not the same as sovereign tribal entities, there is
a substantial possibility that at the end of the 20 year period of
"inalienability" of land claims stock, many persons will view Alas-
kan Natives as terminated as a separate sovereign people through
assimilation into the corporate mainstream of American business
affairs.
406
9. It is essential to recognize now that the Land Claims legislation
may have as a purpose the termination of Native people as sovereign
persons in a larj^er society. Accordingly, we recognize ourselves
as being sovereign and the federal government must also recognize
our sovereignty.
10. The status of Alaska Natives is in reality tied to the interpretation
given the Land Claims Act, and to whether it is viewed as a device
to effect termination of Alaska Natives as tribal members.
11. There are a substantial number of Native Alaskans who do not view
the Land Claims Settlement as terminating their aboriginal rights
to the land because the process by which the Land Claims Act was
approved did not involve the representative approval of Alaska's
Native People with full knowledge of the terms and potential effects
of the act. No matter what legislation is passed by Congress, the
Alaskan Native people remain in control of their land and their lives
and thus their sovereignty. To the extent that they accept the land,
money, and programs of the federal government, they accept them as
a sovereign equal in stature to the federal government.
12. Findings and Recommendations of the American Indian Policy Review
Commission Report pertaining to the need for land claims supplemental
legislation were affirmed in full as follows:
Findings: 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14 through pages 12-29 through 12-30.
Recommendations: 3-7, 9 & 12 on pages 12-31 through 12-34.
13. The federal government's "definition" of h Native blood to qualify
for federal social and welfare programs and to become enrolled under
the Land Claims Act, exemplifies its usurpation of Alaskan Natives'
sovereign right to determine their own status.
14. It is essential that provision be made for the government to reimburse
Native Alaskans when litigation is necessary to protect their rights;
otherwise a large portion of the settlement monies will continue to
end up with lawyers and other professionals, rather than with the in-
tended beneficiaries.
15. Whether or not attorney's fees are made recoverable by statute through
amendment to the Land Claims legislation, it is generally in the
interest of Alaska Natives to resolve a large number of the issues
presented by the AIPRC findings and these recommendations through
federal legislation, rather than through litigation.
16. Land Claims legislation purported to substitute established rights
to approximately 40 million acres of land for unliquidated aboriginal
title. But even viewing the legislation most favorably towards the
federal government, it was an exchange of equal value. Thus it
should not and can not result in the diminution of social services
40;
which are traditionally the federal government's responsibility,
and which remain desperately needed by Alaskan Natives. They
must remain eligible to receive the benefits and future legisla-
tion to promote Indian development and welfare.
Even though Kodiak Area Natives are not substantially impacted by
the D-2 issue, we feel it is critical to take a pro-subsistence
stand. It is vital to the subsistence life style of Alaskan
Natives who retain it, that large areas of land be undisturbed if
subsistence hunting, trapping, collecting and fishing are to re-
main viable. The federal government and the state government must
recognize this in developing legislation and administrative regu-
lations pertaining to the land not conveyed directly to Alaskan
Natives, or to the corporations under the act.
Federal legislation impacting Native subsistence uses such as the
Marine Mammal Protection Act needs to be studied to develop a uni-
form policy to protect Native subsistence uses as a first priority.
Congress should consider legislation to guarantee that states do
not have authority to infringe on Native hunting, fishing, and
other subsistence uses.
Various alternatives should now be considered with regard to the
eventual taxation of lands conveyed under the act. There is no
reason why all the lands - some of which will end up in individual
ownership - must have the same tax incidents. Similarly, various
alternatives must be considered as to when taxation should begin;
20 years after passage of the Act, 20 or more years after actual
conveyance and permanent exempt status are all possibilities. In
any case, extension of the current exemption must be considered
immediately to assure informed and orderly planning. The commis-
sion's recommendations that land which is not leased can regain
such exempt status if it is no longer productive of income, must
be considered seriously.
Identical concerns are presented by the prospective alienability of
stock under the Land Claims Act. It is our position that here too,
some extension of time past the 1991 deadline is necessary due to
the delay in the conveyance of land to the village and regional
corporations. Immediate attention should be devoted to the study,
of these problems rather than delaying their consideration until
not later than 1989 (see recommendation 11, page 12-34).
408
RESOLUTION NO. 21-77
WHEREAS, The Pueblo of Laguna has had a short briefing of the "Tentative
Final Report" of the American Indian Policy Review Commission and,
WHEREAS, The All Indian Pueblo Council has made a special report to the
Commission citing long standing positions of our Pueblo interests and
making specific Recommendations, and
WHEREAS, The American Indian Policy Review Commission was charged with the
responsibility of soliciting Indian Opinion throughout the Course of its
life.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Pueblo of Laguna is in complete accord
with the Commission Recommendations on the following major elements.
1. That The Federal Government recognize its legal obligation as Trustee
for American Indian Tribes as long as any tribe determines the need
exists and that no unilateral action of the U.S. Congress would
terminate a Tribe.
2. That Tribal Self-Governments be recognized by Congress through legis-
lation to be sovereign governmental entities with rights and powers
concommitant to those currently enjoyed by states and the Federal Gov-
ernment in all phases of American life, ie, socially, economically,
and politically.
3. That Tribal Sovereignty be recognized to the mutual benefit of the
Tribe, the State and Federal Government that equality of opportunity
may be as available to American Indians as to the Non-Indian.
4. That the Federal Government recognize this special relation to Americar
Indian Tribes, and that a single Agency Prime Agent be designated as
Trustee recognizing that the Trust Responsibility is a Federal service
wide obligation.
5. That the Prime Agent be provided a separate legal staff , apart from
the Interior Solicitors Office, which can represent the Prime Agent
and Indian Tribes without intergovernmental Conflicts of Interest.
Furthermore, that Congress appropriate funds for the hiring of private
attorneys by Tribes.
6. That additional delegated authority be provided the Agency Superinten-
dents to allow the decision making process to be accomplished at the
level where Tribal Government decisions are made.
7. That additional Agencies be provided to minimize the uncooperative
competition created among tribes of multi-Tribal Agencies when program
projects and funding priority problems must be jointly determined.
409
8. That a zero based budget be utilized to avoid perpetuation of un-
balanced priorities by using percentage adjustments in the Band
Analysis.
9. That Banded and unbanded line items be eliminated to permit freedom
of expression by Tribal Governments as to its own priorities of
work as well as Capital Improvements.
10. That Tribal long Range Plans be utilized in developing annual fund
requirements.
11. That Personnel Management and Indian Preference be revised to establish
a fair and equitable Indian Career Service recognizing Indian Cultural
qualifications on a par with Non-Indian qualifications and equal pay
for equal work, and under Self-Determination allow flexibility and
provisions to permit selection of properly qualified employees, esp-
ecially when Tribes are the primary hiring authorities.
12. That Reservation Protection, enhancement and Development be a portion
of the Trust Responsibility Contractable to the Tribes with only plan
review and approval reserved to the Trustee, v/here capabilities of
the local Tribe is judged qualified according to mutually agreeable
criteria.
13. That Educational Opportunities be provided to the American Indians
equal to the Non-Indians including vo-4:ech. Crafts, Academic degrees
including professional degrees through scholarship as an entitlement
rather than as a supplemental provision to all other aids.
14. That Health Care Standards available to Non-Indians be provided Indians
through P.L. 93-638 and P.L. 94-437 being applied strictly according
to the intent of Congress, ie. to allow greater Tribal participation
in the programming and developing services equal to meet the needs
(638), and to meet the normal standards through adequate appropriation
prior to the use of special accelerated funds provided under (94-437).
15. That Congressional Review treat significant major subjects of Indian
Affairs separately instead of as a single omnibus action of Congress,
so Reports, Bills hearings and Tribal review can be specific, deliberate
with the capability of acting responsibly to support legislation
considered appropriate and oppose legislation considered inappropriate
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:
1. That the recommendations regarding establishment of a separate Depart-
ment for Indian Affairs be held in abeyance until a complete report
of the Activities considered appropriate to consolidate therein and t
the Organizational effect tDn Tribal Governments and the Trust Respon-
sibility be made a separate subject for Tribal Review and recommendations.
2. That Internal Organizational changes of the present BIA Organization
of Central Office, Area Offices, and Agencies be a process of evaluation
of need and periodic appraisal as to the proper and necessary role to
adequately serve Indian Tribes.
410
Done at a duly held meeting of the Council of tlje Pueblo of Laguna on
April 26, 1977.
Governor
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that at a duly called meeting of the Council of the
Pueblo of Laguna held on ^^^ d ay of /?P/f// , 1977 at which a quorum
was present, the foregoing was adopted, ^.z? v oting for and /!?
opposed. / "^
ATTEST:
3ecreta
« L£^
Governor C/
'.^a:U£>^L^
411
March 23, 1977
Sen. James Abourezk:
This letter is in reference to your membership on the Merican Indian Policy
Review Comm., from which you are submitting a 100 point recommendation list to
Congress on May 13th. These recommendations include that Indian reservations
be considered a type of soverign nation and have the right to tax non-indians
& also to try non-indians in tribal coarts.
We own and farm 3^0 acres located one mile inside the boundaries of the" so
called" Leech Lake reservation in northern Minnesota. Our lands have federal
homestead deed titles, and have never been owned by Indians, We have no intention
whatsoever of ever paying taxes to Indians or of being governed by their laws.
We are Americans and these federal homestead deeds were granted to us as Americans—
no where does it say the land is part of a reservation and subject to indian law,
or being part of a soverign nation as you would have it.
Our fathers and brothers have fought for America to protect all of our rights
under the constitution which includes ownership of land, are you now going to
spit in their faces and tell us all their fighting and dying was in vain; that
you are now going to surrender our rights and privileges as Americnas, our land,
and everything else we value, and let the Indians decide what we will do and not
do.
If you are going to set different laws for us, then the federal government is
guilty of issuing false or misrepresented deeds of which we purchased in good
faith of their soundness, and that of living and being treated like any other
American. These deeds state in no way whatsoever that this land would be part
of a soverign nation, and be subject to taxes set by indian law and that we, as
landowners, would have to be tryed in tribal courts. (In fact, they state the
land is ours forever )
If you proceed with subjecting us to indian dictatorship, then the federal
government is obligated to buy the land that it granted homestead deeds too,
that it now says is a reservation. It would have to purchase the land at the
going rate, which in our ares is I'WO. per acre plus buildings and improvements.
We do not wish to move, when our fathers and grandfathers have farmed this land
before us, when this land is legally ours; but if you take away our right to decide
our own destiny and replace it with indian rule, then we will have no choice but
to require the federal government to purchase the many, many thousands of acres .
of land at the rate today' s land is selling for. !four only alternative is to make
federal homesteaded land exempt from being part of a reservation and part of your
recommendations.
An immediate reply is requested as to your decision on our federa]. homesteaded
deeds.
Sincerely, ^
Dale & Bonnie Lembke
Route One
Cass Lake, Mn. 56633
412
We reocjgnize that you nay not be able to thorouc^y read and evaluate all parts
of this F^xart within the time cillcwed for oomnent. Bowever, in order to
inclvde your cxmnents in our Final Report, this questionnciire nust be cxxipleted
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than ;^il 16, 1977.
Our Pinal H^xart nust be cxrpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Comnission approval.
7^vT A. Lt 1/ f^^STO^ ADDRES S /^^///>yv?^ ^AL .
TRIBE/ORGANIZATION ^^^^.^^^j^^^^g^/ isS/S mf^CC C^?^/^
A. PLEASE CIRCIE ONE TO INDICaiE TOUR IDEMTITy AS ;
Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body individual Indian^
Member of Congress Organizational Governing Board
State Official Private Citizen
B. PLEASE EVALUATE THE SECTIOMS BY GHECKING THE HLftNK WHICH MOST NEARLY
REPRESENTS YOUR OPINICN.
The report as a v*iole is
I. History
II. Legal Concepts
III. Conditions
IV. Federal- Indian Relations
V. Tribal Govemnent
VI. Federal Administration
VII. Eooncmic Development
VIII. Social Services
rx. Off-Reservation
X. Teraiinated Indians
XI. Non-Reoognized Indians
XII. Special Problem Areas t-^
XIII. General i^
413
C. aVVPC HERD THE RBOOMEMPftTICMS AT THE EMD CF EftCH SECTICM, PI£ASE WBtCR
THE FOLDCWING QUEglTCMS .
1) Which recxxmiendaticjns should be given priority status? Why?
2) Are there reocrinendaticjns vd.th which you disagree? Wl^y? Vc J «
/ OoA/'r r&e^ THAT ^DucAVoA/ ca A^y or Ti^^n
3) Are there reccnmendations you would lite to have added?
4) Do you feel tte content of the report provides an accurate, use&il
picture of the situation?
U^^fT/j/L fPfir^/J^. T y/1/ T-MiT Aif/S7^3Py O^
5) Do you have any additional cements? J CA^^aT' S£Ce/veyl£' ff^
fA inokxTy Repo/sx toity TH£ ^rAT£WfT?rns op sa c ^
F. SPACE IS PROVIDED CM THE FOLLOWING PAtSS FOR YOUR SPECIFIC REXXWEMDftTICMS.
414
NAM E S ^U^r ////^^Srf^ ACORESS / ^fi /^£^A»0 ^A^C /jcg f^^^
■naBE/OBGfiNIZflTICN A/fi ^f^^^^ C/^S/^ £' ^^*" "
RBCCmEMDftnCNS
Qi^xter ( ) Page ( ) Paragraph ( )
In ^ secao^b'grji^y^fe the wordT" Se>*^^'^£^f6^
," it is suggested that the follc««diig
change in vrordlng be made, nr tJta fttUgvring mnr e rt i n r pr rii- ni
UP m ^y m/^^s- , r?/^/Let{y ^smn^/sM/A/^s- 77/e
/^rf^ .><^^^
_,_,
415
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Edwin Eowarc
Governor
April 19, 1977
Honorable James S. Abourezk
Chairman
American Indian Policy
Review Commission
House Office Building
Annex No. 2
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your recent memorandum enclosing a copy of
the Commission's "tentative" Final Report. I have reviewed
this report and offer the following comments.
The sections concerning off-reservation Indians and unrecog-
nized Indians were found to be the most relevant to Indians
of Louisiana.
Concerning of f -reservation Indians (Chapter 9) , I concur
with the recommendations for urban centers, employment,
housing, and health.
I also agree with all of the findings, recommendations,
and policy needs determined by the Commission relevant
to nonrecognized tribes (Chapter 11). I do, however, strongly
support immediate federal recognition of all authentic
native American tribes, especially the four nonrecognized
groups in Louisiana: the Houma Alliance, the Houma Tribe
Incorporated, the Jena Band of Choctaws, and the Tunica-
Biloxi Tribe.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity for input in the Com-
mission's report.
Sincerely,
^^S^&
e
416
pctic "Technologic Assistance Corporation
15B25 SHADY GROVE ROAD, ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND 20850 Telephone 301 948 7400
April 25, 1977
Mr. Peter Taylor
Indian Policy Review Commission
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to respond to the tentative
reconmendations of the commission. In my opinion the commission has
done a spendid job.
In making the recommendations (attached) that the U.S. claim for
dominion over the Northern Eskimo people be examined in the light of
historic fact, I realize that I have kicked at a hornet's nest,
potentially more significant than the claims of the Maine Indians.
While I have the title of "Scientific and Technical Advisor" to the
Mayor of the Ilorth Slope Borough I have not had time to coordinate
these recommended changes with Mayor Mopson and it is offered to the
Commission from myself as a private citizen.
The sponsorship, I think, is of secondary importance to the truth of
the statements. In that the Commissions task is to reveal the true
nature of U.S. relations with native peoples this recommendation is
respectfully submitted for your consideration.
cerely.
/^
ames H. McAlear, Ph.D.
e
417
nctic Technologic Assistance Corporation
15BS5 SHADY GROVE ROAD. ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND 20B50 Telephone 301 948 7400
RECOMMENDED CHANGE, Chapter 12.2 Paragraph 3 should read
The treaty under which the United States claimed dominion over Alaska , . .
The basis for this change is as follows:
1. Russia did not occupy all of Alaska, only some coastal areas as far
north as Fort St. Michael. (See P.J. Anderson, Arctic Bulletin, 1973).
2. The Alaskan Arctic was a terra incognita to the European powers but
was occupied and defended by a civilization related to those called
Mongolian in Asia. These people had no knowledge of claims to their
land and recognized none other than themselves as soverign over It.
3. The United States knew that Russia had no more claim to dominion over
the Arctic than the U.S. recognition of the claim in an earlier treaty.
4. The United States did not attempt to impose its dominion over the
Arctic until World War II and its claim was stale in the same sense
as Mr. MeedS feels Indian claims to treaty rights are stale.
5. The Inupiat have continuously questioned U.S. claims to dominion and
withdrawal of all lands.
6. The assumption of sovereignity over the Arctic is a prerequisite for
all U.S. acts pertaining to that region. Therefore, the validity of
acts creating a territory 1912, NPR-4 withdrawal 1923, Statehood 1957
and the Alaska Native Land Claims in 1971 are challenged herewith.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The exploitation of the Arctic for oil and gas has created extreme
socio-economic stress amongst the Inupiat. It has fueled an Inflation
three times that of the lower 48. Energy related migration of outsiders
418
will soon innundate the Inupiat making them and impoverished and misunderstood
minority in their own lands. The native land claims act has not resolved
these problems. It is proper that they should be resolved by a treaty
between the U.S. and the Arctic, properly represented by an elected
government, the North Slope Borough.
1. This treaty should resolve the ownership of natural resources so
that the Inupiat receive a fair share by international standards for
their resources.
2. The treaty should provide and affirm all of those rights recognized
and accorded to Indian nations to govern, administer justice, tax,
restrict residence, regulate hunting and fishing and otherwise
determine their own affairs according to their custom.
3. The North Slope Borough when considered as a tribal government
should be extended to include the Inupiat in the NANA and Bering
Straits regions.
4. The treaty should repair the cultural damage already inflicted on
the Inupiat in exchange for access to natural resources. This should
include a system of cotimodity and transportation subsidies and the
elimination or aleviation of all state and federal taxes including
income taxes.
5. This tready should not terminate any state and federal services
already accorded to these people. It should include an inflation
compensation increment proportioned to the existing rate of inflation
for all state and federal payments.
419
6. The United States should extend its international policy to
the development of relations with Canada and Greenland to permit
unimpaired commerce along the Arctic amongst the Inupiat.
420
0m
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ^^ , , _,
y Thomas L. Judge
Capitol Station, Helena, Montana 59601 Governor
April 21, 1977
Mr. Ernest L. Stevens, Director
American Indian Policy Review Conmission
House Office Building, Annex #2
Second & D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Stevens:
This office has reviewed the Economic Development chapter of
the AIPRC Tentative Final Report and would like to submit three
recommendations concerning sub-section B (Availability of In-
vestment Capital) for commission consideration. Our three re-
commendations are as follows:
1. The President direct (by Executive Order) all
agencies of the Federal government providing
financial or technical assistance to Indian
tribes and Indian organizations to formulate a
unified policy with the authority to provide
funding for profit-oriented organizations which
would enhance the economy of Indian people.
2. Financial assistance should be provided to
tribes and Indian organizations to establish
and develop educational facilities to train
potential Indian businessmen in areas of market-
ing, financing, management, purchasing, and ac-
counting systems.
3. Fincincial and technical assistance should be
given to tribes and Indian organizations in
efforts to establish and develop Indian controlled
financial institutions to utilize Indian monies
currently being invested in non-Indian financial
institutions .
We strongly believe that if the above recommendations were im-
plemented, they would improve the economic status, economic in-
dependence, and the economic achievement rate of the Indian
people and compliment the overall economy of the nation.
93-440 477
Harold A. ErYslie, Director
421
Mr. Ernest L. Stevens, Director
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Page 2
We hope the Commission will give our recommendations serious
consideration in the process of developing national policies
affecting Indian Economic Development.
Merle R. Lucas
Coordinator of Indian Affairs
/re
Judy Carlson, Governor's Office
Office of Commerce, Governor's Office
Tom Thompson, Director, Federal Programs
Harold Fryslie, Director, DCA
422
york avenue, n.\
Helena, Montana
April 27, 1977
The Honorable James Abourezk
Chairman, American Indian Polic;j Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building, Annex #2
Washington, D. C. 20515
Subject: NACo Conmients on the
American Indian Policy Review
Coimnlsslon Report.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
County governments have the capacity and willingness to represent and provide
services to all citizens within their boundaries.
Without consultation with county governments the American Indian Policy
Commission has made findings and recommendations that raise serious questions
about the relationship of counties and tribal councils. NACo is especially
concerned about the principle proposed by the Commission for Federal policy that
states:
"The ultimate objective of Federal-Indian policy must be directed
toward aiding the tribes in achievement of fully functioning govern-
ments exercising primary governmental authority within the boundaries
of the respective reservations. This authority would include the
power to adjudicate civil and criminal matters, to regulate land use,
to regulate natural resources such as fish and game and water rights ,
to issue business licenses, to impose taxes, and to do any and all
of those things which all local governments within the United States
are presently doing."
The Commission report further states that: "The growth and development of tribal
government Into fully-functioning governments necessarily encompasses the exercise
of some tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian people and property within reserva-
tion boundaries."
Conflict and changes In Federal Indian affairs and policies have resulted in
a substantial number of non-Indians living or owning land on Indian reservations
423
and since there exists in most of the same areas, county governments, the proposed
Commission policy raises the following questions:
1. How would a tribal government constitutionally represent all of the
citizens within its boundaries as now represented by county government
if only tribal members are allowed a voice or vote in tribal government?
2. How would the extent of tribal jurisdiction be determined where no
Federally recognized reservation boundaries now exist?
3. How would due process of law be effectively and realistically
guaranteed to all citizens within a tribal court system similar to a
county-state court system?
4. How would land use planning and zoning powers be administered on an
equitable basis to all citizens, Indian and non-Indian alike?
5. How would regulation of water rights and the distribution thereof be
fairly administered?
6. How would national, state and local air, water and other environmental
quality standards be administered and enforced?
7. How would all categories of taxes be imposed fairly and equitably upon
all citizens? Would non-tribal members Be taxed without representation?
Would tribal members be taxed who are now exempt from state and local
taxation?
Although this task, force has not had an adequate opportunity to review both
majority and dissenting reports, many of the questions and concerns of counties have
been expressed in the dissenting views of the Commission. Congress must provide
an equal vehicle for the expression of county views including on-site Congressional
hearings.
The potential Impact of the Commission recommendations on county government •
cannot be overstated. Before Federal Agency or Congressional action is contemplated
for implementation of any of the Commission's recommendations, county government must
be given an adequate opportunity to be heard. It is imperative that county govern-
ments be included as a full partner in any Federal-State-Indian efforts to resolve
these questions. These efforts would require cooperation, communication and educa-
tion at the local level.
This Task Force stands ready to assist in these erforts.
Sincerely,
/ajl/J^iL}
Fred Johnson, Chairman
NACo Task Force on Indian Affairs
424
William H. Veeder
Attorney at Law
818 - 18th Street, N.W., Suite 920
Washington, D. C. 20006
(202) 466-3890
LETIER OF TRANSMITTAL
The Honorable Janes Abourezk, Chairman 27 May 1977
Select Ccmnittee on Indian Affairs
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
ATTENTION: Ernest L. Stevens
Dear Senator Abourezk:
As requested by you, I have carefully reviewed the Tentative Final
Report of the Arnerican Indian Policy Review Cotmission, hereafter referred
to as "The Majority Report." Because of the vast array of crucial subject
natter embraced within "The Majority Report," I have' limited it^ comients
to those vAiich I perceive to be the itost crucial. These topics under dis-
cussion relate to the inherent sovereign power of the tribes dating frcm
time iitmatorial; tribal ownership of the lands from time imneniorial; tribal
powar under sovereign authority to administer those lands and appurtances;
and the trust obligation of the United States of America.
An in-depth review was made of the Separate Dissenting Views of Con-
gresanan Lloyd Meeds, D-Wash. , Vice Chairman of the American Indian Policy
Review Ccmnnission, hereafter referred to as "The Dissent. " As will be ob-
served in my oatments, I find no merit in the law vrfiich was presented and
relied upon in "The Dissent." Due to the sharp attack on the Winans and
Winters cases, I have attached, to my ccnnents entitled "'The Majority Re-
port' Vis-a-Vis 'The Dissent,'" a ireitorandum entitled "An Analysis of Pro-
posed Secretarial Rules Respecting 'The Use of Water on Indian Reservations'
and the Recomnended Rejection of them." This paper was prepared for the
National Congress of American Indians. I believe that the oarments on "The
Majority Report" and "The Dissent" should be read on the background of that
"Analysis." Both "The Dissent" and the "Analysis" are reflective of a con-
certed effort inside and outside of the Federal Government to: 1) denigrate
the inherent sovereign povrer of the tribes to administer their own properties;
and 2) attack the concepts of Winans and Winters as enunciated by the Supreme
court.
425
You are to be greatly ocninended for the general excellence of "The
Majority Report." I sincerely hope that my ccnmsnts will be of assis-
tance to you.
Sincerely,
Veeder
W^iM*;?^^^
426
MEMORANDUM
TO
SENATOR JT^MES ABOUREZK, CHAIRMAN
SELEXrr OQMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
RELATIVE TO
"THE MAJORITY REPORT"
VIS-A-VIS
"THE DISSENT"
William H, Veeder
May 1977
427
TABLE OF CDNTENTS
INTRODUCTION. 1
A. Conflicts of Interest have been Institutionalized in the Interior
Department and Lands Division of the Department of Justice 2
B. Immediate Escecutive Action Can and Mast be Taken 3
C. Sunnary of "The Majority Report" Conclusions Respecting the
Inherent Sovereign Authority of American Indian Nations and
Tribes 7
D. Rejection ty "The Dissent" of "The Majority Report's" Evaliaation
of Indian Sovereignty , 7
Evaluation of "The Dissent's" Position Relative to Indian
Tribal Sovereignty — It is without Merit 8
a. There is no merit in the assertion, expressed by "The
Dissent," "... that American Indian tribes lost their
sovereignty through discovery. ... " 12
b. There is no merit to the assertion in "The Dissent"
"... that Indian tribes lost their sovereignty...
through... conquest...." 16
c. There is no merit in the assertion ejqsressed by "The
Dissent" "... that American Indian tribes lost their
sovereignty ty... cession...." 18
d. There is no merit in the assertion in "The Dissent"
"... that American Indian tribes lost their sover-
eignty by... statutes,..." . 21
e. There is no merit in the assertion in "The Dissent"
"... that American Indian tribes lost their sover-
eignty by, . , history. " 25
f . There is no merit separately or in the aggregate, as
ej^ressed in "The Dissent" "that Arrerican Indian tribes
lost their sovereignty through (1) discovery; (2) con-
quest; C3) cession; (4) treaties; (5) statutes; and
C6) history." 26
428
E. "The Majority Report" Correctly Declares that the American
Indian Tribes, ty their Treaties, Reserve to Themselves,
Title to their Lands, Rights to the Use of Water, and Other
Resources, vAiich vere not Conveyed by Treaty, Agreonents
or Othervd.se 27
F. The American Indian Nations and Tribes, by their Treaties,
Retain — In the Exercise of their Inherent Sovereign Powers
— All of their Ancient Homelands and ^^urtenant Properties
They did not Grant to the United States by their Treaties 28
1. The Winters Decision Must Be Read vd.th the Winans Decision
If the ffegnitixJe of the Errors in "The Dissent" are to be
Fully Conprehended 37
2. Reaffintence and Reiteration of Concepts of Winans Dis-
pels Any Merit v*dch might otherwise ty Attributed to "The
Dissent" Relative to the Retention by the Tribes of Prop-
erties Not Granted to the United States 40
3. Attenpts by "The Dissent" to Denigrate the Sxprone law of
the Land Must Fail 42
4. A Non Sequitur in "The Dissent" Doronstrates the Paucity
of Authority in Sufport of It 44
5. "This Nation's Trust Responsibility Rejected by 'The
Dissent'" 48
G. Congress Cannot Do It All — Plenary Power Has Its Limitations, . . 58
1. Deficiencies in Executive Action 58
a. Executive Abridgatent of the Winans-Winters Conc^ts. ... 59
b. Vitiation of the Congressional Will as Enunciated in
the "Self -Determination" Act, 25 U.S.C. 450 Et Seq 61
2. Inmediate Presidential Action Paralleling and Inplemsnting
"The Majority Report" is an Inperative Necessity 63
429
TO
SENATOR JPmS ABOUREZK, CHAIRMAN
SELECT OOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
RELATIVE TO
"THE MAJORITY REPORT" */
VIS-A-VIS
"THE DISSENT" ^/
William H. Veeder
INTRDDUCriON
"The iiDst basic of all Indian rights, the right of self-
govemnent, is the Indians' last defense against adminis-
trative oppression.... Self-government is thus the Indians'
only alternative to rule by a government department." 1/
The American Indian Policy Review Coimissicn must be highly cormended for
the "Tentative Final Report," hereinafter referred to as "The Majority Ri^»rt."
It was sutinitted for review and ocnroent.
It is essential here to emphasize that "The Majority Report" is an his- •
toric event. Its content, background, and docimentation effectively denon-
*/ "The Tentative Final Report" to the majority of the American Indian Policy
~ Review Conmission .
**/ Separate Dissenting Views of Congresatan Lloyd Meeds, D-Wash. , Vice-
Qiairman of the American Indian Policy Review Ccmmission.
1/ Handbook of Federal Indian Law , Felix S. Cohen, Ch. 7, "The Scope of
Tribal Self -Government," pg. 122.
430
strata the breadth and intensity of the vrork vMch has been catpleted. It is
reflective, itoreover, from the hearings held by the Conitiission, that the Aner-
ican Indians have themselves set forth with specificity their appraisal of
Indian affairs in the United States as they perceive them in the closing years
of the IVentieth Century.
Fran "The rtajority Report," there anerges these imdeniable facts:
There exists today, a formidable body of Ccxistitutional,
legislative and decisional law vAiich is highly favorable
to the American Indian people. That broad area of jur-
ispnadence should have been utilized for the great better-
ment of the Indians. It has, however, been distorted and
suppressed by an intransigent, de^ly entrenched and sup-
pressive bureaucracy in the Departanent of the Interior.
Relative to that formidable body of favorable law, these
salient facts are aEparant frcm "The- Majority Ri^ort."
A. Conflicts of Interest have been Institutionalized in the
Interior Department and Lands Division of the Department
of Justice
Contained in "The Majority Ri^xDrt" is the fact that conflicts of
interest in the Office of the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney Gen-
eral of the United States, acting through the land and Natural Resources
Division of the Department of Justice, have been institutionalized in a manner
that shocks the conscience.
Congress, predicated upon the information contained in "The Majority
Report" and the vast record i^xsn which reliance can be placed, can force rad-
ical changes within the Interior Department and Lands Division, vMch agencies
very largely control the day-to-day administration and the litigation involved
in Indian affairs.
431
There can be gleaned from "The Majority Report," not only the reoartmen-
dations vfcLch it contains, bat, moreover, the tone and tamper of the adminis-
tration of Indian affairs vdiich can best be described as grossly inadequate.
Equally clear, moreover, are these facts:
1. Corrective action relative to Indian affairs is an
iitperative necessity vM.ch can and must be taken
without further legislation.
2. That corrective action demands that the governing
bodies of the Alter ican Indian nations and tribes
be fully inplarented and utilized to eliminate
the wasteful practices, both as to human rights
and funds which now transpire as a matter, appar-
ently, of policy.
3. Equally clear is the fact that the institution-
alized conflicts of interest have been, and are
now resulting in violation of the rights of the
American Indian, individually, and confiscating
their property rights, both collectively and in-
dividually.
4. Congress should proceed forthwith to develop approp-
riate legislation for the removal of Indian affairs
from the Department of the Interior and to estab-
lish an independent agency for Indian affairs.
B. Immadiate Executive Action Can and Must be Taken
Iitmediate Executive action to eliminate present practices in the
Interior Department and Lands Division of the Department of Justice must be
taken forthwith. For example, the Bureau of Reclamation, vrorking in close
conjunction with special interests outside of the Federal Govemmsant and with
or through the Solicitors Office and Lands Division, has been violating not
only the Indians' right for representation by counsel of their own choosing.
93-440 O - 78
432
but likewise confiscating the Indian rights for the benefit of non-Indian pur-
poses and projects. It can be deinonstrated, and an opportunity should be pro-
vided to demonstrate it, that federal reclamation projects are today being built
through the presentation of grossly misleading hydraulic data and other tech-
nical information. Those data have been deliberately prepared to represent, to
Congress and to the Nation, that tliere are sufficient vater supplies for recla-
rtation projects, vAien, in truth and fact, the operation of those projects is
dependent i^xan the violation of Indian Winters rights to the use of water.
Ttose projects include, but are not limited to, the Central Arizona Federal
Iteclamation Project, the San Juan-Chama Federal ReclaitHtion Project, and the
Central Utah Federal Reclamation Project. It is sutmitted that the data re-
lied upon and the action taken in regard to the misrepresentation of facts by
officials in the Interior Department are cornptive in character and demand full
exposure, antecedent to permitting those projects to go forward to coipletion.
Othervdse, the Indian tribes ijn tiie watersheds, vhere those projects are situ-
ated, will be sacrificed for the special interests that sponsor those projects,
vMch special interests are virtually inseparable from the Bureau of Reclamation .
Additionally, corrective action must be taken to preclude federal lawyers
in the Solicitors Office and Lands Division frcm acting without authorization
from the Indian nations and tribes. Frequently, lawyers frcm those agencies,
without Indian knowledge, acquiescence, consent or approval, advocate legal
concepts vfcLch are contrary to Indian interests. Very often, the actions taken
by those lawyers are clearly at variance with the laws, either as expressed by
Congress or as set forth in the various decisions xjpon which those lawyers rely.
433
-5-
Clearly, the Solicitors Office and the Lands Division are the cutting edge of
special interests, v*k> greatly enrich themselves by either poor representation
by federal lawyers or actual emission of effective presentation by thsm. Indeed,
it can be said, without serious challenge to the contrary, that, as in tl« Vfelton
and Bel Bay cases reviewed in the attached analysis, the Solicitors Office ard
Lands Division are aggressive advocates for non-Indian interests against the
Indian people.
There resides in the Executive Branch of the Government, at the present time,
both the power and the absolute obligation to take corrective action in regard to
the conduct of the Solicitors Office and Lands Division. President Carter, on
April 6, 1977, signed into law the broad powers conferred upon him by the Congress
of the United States to reorganize the Executive Branch of the Government. By
acting now, to protect the Indians against the invasions of their property and
human rights, as outlined above, he would be iitplementing his pnsgram to protect
human rights. It is possible now to eliminate the shameful pattern that has
developed down through the years in v*iich the Solicitors Office and Lands Divis-
ion have proceeded in disregard of the Constitutional and civil rights of the
American Indian nations and tribes to have counsel of their own choosing.
There is attached to this memorandum and made a part of it "An Analysis
of Proposed Secretarial Rules Respecting the 'Use of Water on Indian Reservations'
and the Reconmended Rejection of them," vMch was prepared for and distributed
by the National Congress of American Indians. Contained in that memorandum is a
clear exeitplif ication of the pressing and iirperative need for corrective action in
the Solicitors Office of the Interior Department and in lands Division to halt and
to prevent the suppressive and destructive conduct of those federal lawyers. Be-
ing irmiersed in conflicts of interests, those lawyers are daily acting to the
434
irreparable damage of the American Indian people, all as spelled oiit with
specificity in the acoonpanying Memorandum alluded to in this paragraph.
II. "THE MAJORITY PEPORT" VIS-A-VIS "THE DISSENT"
Very narkedly, this analysis turns upon the basic propositions e3<pounded
in "The Majority Report" and the attacks upon those concepts which are espoused
by "The Dissent." That attack i^xan "The Majority Report," as set forth in "The
Dissent," has delineated the principal areas of conflict in the Indian and non-
Indian ccnmunities. In that regard, it is observed in passing that "The Dissent"
has performed a great service. It has squarely presented the question of whether
the predominant, non-Indian conmunity views itself as a conquering, suppressive
force intent i^xxi destroying the American Indian nations and tribes. It is res-
pectfully suggested that the large percentage of non-Indians do not subscribe to
the vindictive conqueror as outlined in "The Dissent." Rather, they proceed upon
the basis that all men are truly created equal. By reason of that fact and the
special circumstances viiich exist in regard to the American Indian nations and
tribes, the respect for hunan dignity will preserve, protect and nurture the
powers of inherent self-government that the Indians have exercised since time
inir'atorial, MDreover, it is likewise respectfully submitted that the average
non-Indian subscribes — if he has knowledge of it ~ to the concept that this
Nation owes to the American Indians a trust responsibility, viiich should and
must be performed within the concepts of the Constitution as it has been construed.
Due to the magnitude of "The Majority Report" and the principal attacks
upon it, as set forth in "The Dissent," it has been determined that this contnen-
tary will be limited to two {2\ major aspects:
435
1. The inherent sovereign authority of the American Indians and
tribes to govern their own affairs extends far beyond the pres-
ent activities that are being performed by than in the exercise
of those sovereign powers.
2. The American Indian tribes, vAiether "treaty" or non-treaty In-
dians, hold full, equitable title to their reservations and to
their rights to the use of water and other appurtenances to
those reservation lands. Under their treaties, those lands and
appurtenances were reserved by the tribes. Those properties
were not granted by the tribes to the United States, but rather,
Vvere retained by the tribes as part of all vJrich they did not
grant pursuant to their inherent sovereign powers.
C. Surmary of "The Majority Report" Conclusions Respecting the
iTiherent Sovereign Authority of American Indian Nations and
Tribes
Succinctly stated, the predominant conclusions of "The Majority Report,"
relative to the inherent sovereign powers of the American Indian nations and tribes,
are as follows:
1. The Indian nations and tribes have inherent powers which spring
frcm time imtiemDrial , antedating "discovery," and those powers
are not conferred vpon the tribes by any grant of authority frcm
the Federal Govemnent, That power, moreover, extends not only
to Indians within tribal jurisdiction, their lands and other prop-
erties referred to in (2.) above, but of necessity, extends to
non-Indians within that jurisdiction or the power of the tribes
to administer the lands within the reservation would be totally
vacuous.
2. American Indian nations and tribes are not "federal instrumen-
talities." The Federal Government has, moreover, historically
recognized the sovereignty of Indian tribes and has historically
utilized the tribes in carrying out this Nation's policy rela-
tive to Indian affairs.
D. Rejection by "The Dissent" of "The Majority Report's" Evaluation of
Indian Sovereignty
With sharp vehenence, "The Dissent" rejects, out of hand, the concepts
adopted by "The Majority Report" relative to sovereign authority of Indian tribes
436
and to their powers to govern. Eb^licitly and in unequivocal terms, "The Dissent"
views the Amarican Indian nations and tribes as conquered people without any auth^
ority, absent that ccxiferred i^xan than hy the Congress. Moreover, there is an
es^sress denial and a caveat as to reprisal should Congress admit tribal jurisdic-
tion over non-Indians. Similarly, "Ths Dissent" rejects any suggestion that the
Congress might "confer" jurisdiction upon the tribes over ncn-Indians within the
jurisdiction of the tribal governing body.
Evaluation of "The Dissent's" Position Relative to Indian
Tribal Sovereignty — It is without Merit
Attention must be directed to the crucial contentions of "The
Dissent" for the purpose of refuting the basic premise relied ipon in that dissent
v*iich challenges the concepts of "The Majority Report" relative to Indian tribal
sovereignty. Reference in that connection is made to this initial and principal
heading in "The Dissent": "I. TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNMENT V. TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY,
THE FORMER A LEXM^ DOCTRINE, THE LATTER A POLITICAL SLOGAN." 2/ There is thus
well-defined in capsule form the rationale of "The Dissent," wherein it is
ej^licitly stated in clear error that:
"The doctrine of inherent tribal sovereignty, adopted by the Maj-
ority Report, ignores the historical reality that American Indian
tribes lost their sovereignty through [i] discovery, [ii] conquest,
[iii] cession, [iv] treaties, [v] statutes and history."
In support of that conclusion, there are cited three sources. 3/ As to the first
authority that is cited, extended coiment is not required. Manifestly, tlie report
of the Arbitration Tribunal did not and could not constitute binding authority
The Dissent, pg. 1,
The Dissent, pgs. 4-5. Cayi^a Indian Claims (Great Britain v. United
States), 20 AM. J. Int'l L. 574, 577 (1926) (American and British Claims
Arbitration Tribunal) and the cases of Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. 543,
574 (1923); Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1, 17 (1831).
437
-9-
on anyone except those iitmediately involved. Reliance cannot be placed upon
that reference as authority for which it is cited hy "The Dissent."
As to Mcintosh and Cherokee Nation , Sx5)reine Court decisions, repeate^l
references will be made to than and their inapplicability will be etphasized.
Irrespective of the absence of authority to support the declaration as to Ycm
the American Indian nations and tribes allegedly "lost" their tribal sover-
eignty, there follows, in "The Dissent," this statement:
"... To the extent American Indian tribes are permitted
to exist as political units at all, it is by virtue of
the laws of the United States and not any inherent right
to government, either of themselves or of others." 4/
No further authorities are cited in "The Dissent" for the sweeping assertion
as to the loss of sovereign power by the tribes.
The issue of Indian sovereignty is far frcm academic. Do Indian tribes
have authority v*iich exists independent of the National Govemrtent, which
tribal authority is derivative of the Indian forebearers who exercised those
powers of government fron time imnanorial? It is a matter of crucial ittpor-
tance. On the si±)ject to those vto would recognize tribal sovereignty over
non-Indians, "The Dissent" has this to say, albeit the threatening caveat
is purportedly limited to Congress:
"... if Congress should ever think it wise to give
Indian people e^qserience in government by letting
than practice on non-Indians, I predict we would be
swiftly set straight by the vast majority of our con-
stituents. " 5/
4/ Id.
5/ The Dissent, pg. 11.
438
-10-
Basically — and "The Dissent" says realistically — it is essential for the
flmsrican Indian nations, tribes and people and those vrtio si^sport them to assess
the vd.sdcm of adopting "The Majority Report" due to "The Dissent's" iitplicit threat
of backlash by non-Indians, the dcminating society. "The Dissent" presents the
United States as a cruel, harsh and suppressive conqueror. I reject that savage
cotitent out of hand. The very wellsprings of this Nation are human rights, dig-
nity and the right of property owners, such as the Indians, to be free from con-
fiscation of their properties. Nevertheless, the rationale, tone and tatper of
"The Dissent," as stated, are harsh and cruel. It ignores the formidable and
highly favorable body of law, to vAiich reference has been itade, that supports and
continues to support, the Indian nations and tribes in their desire for an ex-
panding exercise of the inherent pov^rs of the tribes. Indian sovereignty is, cind
has been from time iitttHmorial , imbued in the tribal history and the history of the
National Government. It must be recalled that the tribes were of vast importance
during the War of Independence in Uiich the thirteen colonies sought to achieve
their own sovereignty by throwing off the oppressive power of the King of England.
It is inportant to bear in mind the fact that the leaders of the revolution
against King George were brave men, but they were not foolhardy. As stated in
Vforcester: The Continental Congress,
"Far from advancing any claim to their [Indian] lands,
or asserting any dcminion over than. Congress resolved,
•tliat the securing and preserving the friendship of the
Indian nations appears to be a subject of utmost moment
to these colonies.'" 6/
As pointed out in Vforcester, "... the colonists had great cause for apprehension.
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 372, 572 (1832),
439
-11-
that the Indian nations [during the Revolutionary War] ..." would join Great
Britain as allies and "add their arms to hers." It was then arphasized, by Jus-
tice Marshall, v*io lad personal knowledge of the matter, "far frcm advancing a
claim to — " Indian lands or seeking to exercise jurisdiction over those lands
or the Indians v*Dse ownership and sovereignty were recognized by the colonists,
the rebellious colonies vere most cinxious to secure the assistance in their war
with Great Britain. At this late date, v*ien the dcminant party is now the non-
Indian, the role of the Indian nations in the Revolutionary Vfer and the fact they
did not in the majority "add their arms" to Great Britain should, in thanksgiving,
be remembered.
It would be well, also to remanber, that the first treaty the anbattled
colonists entered into with the Indian tribes was vrfiile the Revolutionary Vfer was
in progress and, indeed, the outcome was very much imbalance. It was the Delaware
Indian Nation that the colonists sought to negotiate with and did consuitmate a
treaty, A reading of that treaty will evidence this fact: The colonists, exer-
cising their newly claimed sovereignty, treated the Delaware Indian Nation as an
equal, requesting that Nation to join them against the ocniton enemy, George III.
Thus the first American Indian treaty came about under circumstances where there
was no bombast, no cruel and harsh suppression of the Delaware Indian Nations such
as "The Dissent" would now recomnend as a course of policy. Rather, it is his-
torically true — and vast iitportant to this Nation — that the sovereign Indian
tribes could have joined with Great Britain and could have precipitated a disas-
ter to this Nation that did not transpire. That predicate and the consideration
of it are certainly the legal basis for asserting the trust relationship this
Nation owes to the Indian nations and tribes. It is suggested in "The Dissent"
440
-12-
that ingratitude is the greatest sin of all and that is the sin cottirdtted by "The
Dissent," not only against the American Indian tribes, but against the memory of
those v*io founded this Nation.
It will be on that backgroiond that the consideration will be given to the
basis upon vteLch "The Dissent" declares that American Indian nations and tribes
lost their sovereignty and the predicate vpon which that conclusion is expressed
in "The Dissent."
a. There is no merit in the assertion, expressed hy
"The Dissent,""... that American Indian tribes
lost their sovereignty through discovery " 7/
Reject out of hand that assertion in "The Dissent" that "discovery"
in some manner destroyed tribal sovereignty. At the outset, it would be well to
consider this question: What is meant by discovery? History tells us that "dis-
covery" occurred in 1497 v*ien Cabot sailed south down the Atlantic Coast of the
North American Continent to the present State of Virginia. That adventurer
viewed — or said he did — that he had beheld the vast land mass, vAiich was
later to be determined to be the North American Continent. Having done so —
looked at it — he claimed it for King Henry the VII of England. History also
tells us that one hundred years would elapse before a concerted effort woiiLd be
made by England to enter upon the Ccaitinent with the objective of permanent res-
idence, 8/
In support of this fiction that "discovery" destroyed tribal sovereignty,
"The Dissent" cites Johnson v. Mcintosh. 9/ Yet, that case does not state anyv^'ere
7/ The Dissent, pgs. 4-5.
8/ See 1 Bancroft, History of the United States , pg, 8 et seq .; see Vforcester
V. Georgia, 31 U.S. 350, 368 (1831) .
9/ The Dissent, pg. 5, 21 U.S.C. 543, 574 (1823) .
441
-13-
that the Indians lost their tribal sovereignty. What it does say is that araong
the potentates of Europe, the Nation having discovered a tract of land on the
North American Continent — due to its magnitude, there vas enough for every-
one — there vould be no violation of one potentate's "discovery" as against an-
other potentate's "discovery." Moreover, the potentates, among themselves,
like the Solicitors Office and Lands Division, did not consult the Indians —
but, decided that Indian nations and tribes could not sell their lands to any
potentate but the one who had made discovery. It is difficult to perceive how the
far off enpires of Europe could or did destroy the sovereignty of the Indian
tribes without the knowledge of the tribes. That there Vvas an effect i^xan the
inherent and ininatDrial title that resided in the Indian nations and tribes, which
occupied the North American Continent, is undeniable. There was not a destruction
of the inherent power of the tribes to govern themselves, v^iatever the consequences
ware relative to title. Throughout "The Dissent," there is a failure to compre-
hend the difference between the powar of self-government and the title to land.
"The Dissent" flounders badly in its attempt to denigrate tribal sovereignty.
That issue will be subsequently reviewed, but at this point, it suffices to state
that sovereignty means the power to govern. It likewise means the pcMer to own
property. But rest assured that sovereignty does not ananate from the ownership
of land, nor is there any authority vAiich would si5)port the mistaken concept that,
in seme manner, sovereignty emerges from the land occupied by the tribes.
Father than denying tribal sovereignty, the Mcintosh decision repeatedly and
throughout makes reference to the continued existence of the tribal governments and
that existence was recognized by the great powers of Europe. Later, and down to
442
-14-
date, tribal sovereignty has been and is recognized by the United States of fliter-
ica. Bear in mind the United States entered into 400 treaties vd.th the tribes and
many of those treaties are, in force and effect, a part of the Si^ireme Law of
the Land.
Reliance is likewise placed in "The Dissent" upon Cherokee Nation to si^jport
the concepts that the fiction of "discovery" destroyed tritel sovereignty, as
urged by "The Dissent." Again, a reading of Cherokee Nation makes short shrift of
the contentions contained in "The Dissent." 10/ Involved there was the question of
v*ether the Cherokee Nation came within the purview of the provisions of the Con-
stitution v*iich confers original jurisdiction i^xDn the Sipreme Court involving
"... ccaitroversies between a state... and foreign States.,,." 11/ Tto the Cherokee
Nation, the Sijprene Cburt said, "no." It stated the Cherokee Nation did not cote
within the category of "foreign States," as contemplated in the quoted excerpt
fran the Constitution. It is instructive, hovi^ver, to read the first pages of ,
Cherokee Nation better to understand both the meaning of the term sovereignty as
used in "The Majority Report" and the iitplications flowing fron that term as there
used. Similarly, it must be acknowledged by vtoever wnDte "The Dissent" that Wbr-
cester v. Georgia was decided the year iitmediately following the Cherokee Nation .
In Worcester , the full extent, nature and character of Indian tribal sovereignty are
reviewed in detail, 12/ It is also worthy of note that Wbrcester was rendered
eight C8) years si±isequent to Mcintosh and most assuredly there was no attaipt in
Vforcester to reverse Mcintosh. Yet, as stated, Worcester defines, delineates and
10/ Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 1 (1831).
11/ constitution of the United States, 1787, Article III, Section 2.
12/ See Worcester v, Georgia, 31 U.S, 515, 558, 560-561 (1832) .
443
-15-
declares the vitality and existence of Indian inherent tribal sovereignty in terms,
which are today, viable and applied by decisions rendered most recently by the
Highest Court. 13/ Let those vAio prepared "The Dissent" and thDse whD SLpport it
bear in mind that Indian tribal sovereignty was recognized — albeit modified —
in Johnson v. Mcintosh . That is the concept of "The Majority Report." Cherokee
Nation , is likewise relied upon in declaring that "discovery" destroyed Indian
tribal sovereignty. That is error. Reliance vpon those cases, indeed, reliance
upon the concept that "discovery" in some nanner destroyed Indian tribal sover-
eignty is gravely in error for these reasons of decisional precedent: One year
after Cherokee Nation ; nine years after Johnson v. Mcintosh, the Svpreme Court
rendered the decision of Vtorcester v. Georgia . In these terms, e>^licitly and un-
equivocally, the Highest Court deci.ded as folloivs:
"The very term 'Nation, ' so generally applied to them [Indian
Nations], means 'a people distinct from others.' The Consti-
tution by declaring treaties already nade, as well as those to
be made, to be the Supreme Law of the Land has adopted and
sanctioned the prior treaties with Indian Nations, and conse-
quently admits their rank among those powers vAx) are capable of
making treaties." 14/
It is impossible to perceive, with reason, how "The Dissent," confronted with
the 1832 decision in Vibrcester , could sensibly advance the idea that "discovery,"
which had occurred 345 years antecedent to Vforcester , could have, in seme manner,
destroyed Indian sovereignty. I, moreover, reject the concepts found in "The
Dissent" that the American and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal, a most limited
arrangement, could reverse Worcester and in some unexplicable manner effect the
13/ See M::Clanahan v. Arizona, 411 U.S. 164, particularly on pgs. 168 et seq .
C1973) .
14/ Worcester V. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 558, 560-561 (1832).
444
-16-
Indian sovereignty involving nations and tribes which vere in no way involved in
that "arbitration." What the citation, in "The Dissent," does is this: There is
a dirth, a paucity of legal precedent to support the stateitient contained in "The
Dissent," that "discovery" caused the Indian nations and tribes to lose their
sovereignty.
b. There is no merit to the assertion in "The Dissent"
"... that Indian tribes lost their sovereignty "...
through... conquest.... " 15/
The fiction of "discovery," as a factor in the alleged destruc-
tion of Indian tribal sovereignty, based upon Mcintosh and caierokee Nation , comes
within the category of the grave ndstakes set out in "The Dissent." Equally clear
is the fact that "conquest" did not destroy Indian tribal sovereignty. It is
urged that the cases of Mcintosh and Cherokee Nation be thoroughly considered by
anyone v*io relies upon "The Dissent" as authority. Repeatedly in Mcintosh , the
fact that the Indian nations were exercising sovereignty was recognized by the
European ertpires who were invading the North American Continent; it was a factor
that had great influence upon the United States in its formative years. Reasons
in Mglntosh are given v*iy Indian tribal sovereignty was a reality. Among those
reasons, as stated in Mcintosh , is this: The Indian nations and tribes were
"Fierce and warlike in character...." They were jealous of their freedan as
nations and being "... Fierce... to govern them... was iitpossible . . , [for] they
were ready to repel by arms every atteitpt at their independence." 16/ Indeed,
15/ The Dissent, pgs. 5-6.
16/ Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. 543, 590 (1823) ,
445
-17-
to avoid clashes with the Indian nations and tribes, we are instructed by
Mcintosh , that France, Spain, Great Britain, and later the United States, at
the time of Ifclntosh and antecedent to that time, refrained from asserting
"... claims to their lands, to daninion over their persons " 17/ So it is
that conquest, at the time of Vforcester , had not destroyed the Indian tribal
sovereignty.
How Cherokee Nation could be relied upon to support the concept in "The
Dissent" that the tribes had lost their sovereignty by "conquest" is dif-
ficult to perceive. In describing Cherokee Nation , correctly and realistic-
ally — not chauvinistically — Justice Story, in his famous CCinmentaries on
the Oonstitution , said this:
"Upon solCTm argument, it has been held, that such
a tribe is to be deemed politically a State; that
is, a distinct, political society, capable of self-
govemrrent; but is not to be deemed a foreign State ,
in the sense of the Constitution...." 18/ [EUphasis]
There should be rejected out of hand, the assertions that "conquest"
destroyed Indian tribal sovereignty, by reason of any ruling in either ffclntosh
or Cherokee Nation, or indeed, the arbitration reference, the precedential
nature of which must of necessity be most doubtful.
17/ Wbrcester v. Georgia, 31 U^S. 350, 571 a8321,
18/ 2 Story, On the Constitution , Fifth Edition, Section llQl, pg, 44.
446
c. There is no nerit in the assertion expressed by
"The Dissent" "... that Ainerican Indian tribes
lost their sovereignty by... cession " 19/ ~
A most careful consideration has been given to the treaties
entered into during and siijsequent to the Revolutionary War and down to the time
that this Nation ceased, in 1871, to enter into treaties, substituting agreatients
and other arrangements vfcLch are tantamount to treaties. Throughout those treat-
ies, there vere cessions of property itade by the Indian nations and tribes to the
United States. Those treaties — seme of them were shaiteful, others unfortunate —
all involved an exercise of Indian tribal authority. The United States, as a
party to the treaties, of necessity recognized tribal sovereignty. Tto some, this
Nation perpetrated a gigantic hoax upon the Indian people hy those treaties. I
will not attribute such aitorality to the United States of America. I reject that
concept. It is inpossible to believe that the Chief Executive, in the exercise
of the powers invested in hisr. by the Constitution and the Senate of the United
States, would sink to the level of invoking the Supreme law of the land vdiile per-
petrating a hoax, not only upon the Indian nations and tribes involved, but on the
citizenry of the United States, who are very serious about their fundamental law —
the Constitution. 20/
Cession neans, as it must msan in the context of "The Dissent," the
assignment of a right or claim, "a transfer usually evidenced by a treaty
19/ The Dissent, pgs. 4 and 5.
20/ In regard to the dignity of American Indian nations and tribes, it is
reccmmended that those who support "The Dissent," indeed, those vflio
wrote it, should consider these excerpts from our fundamental law: In
the Constitution of the United States, TVrticle II, Sec. 1, provision
is made as follows: "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President
of the United States of America " Section 2 : "The President shall
be the Oomrander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. . . .
447
-19-
of sovereignty over territory of one sovereign state to another, apparently
willing to accept it." 21/ Throughout this Nation's history, cessions of
property have been made to it — and it has indeed likewise ceded property.
Yet, those cessionsall involving sovereignty, some of than being reciprocal
in nature, did not in any sense iiipair the sovereignty of this Nation or those
with v*cm it covenanted. Neither did it impair the sovereignty of the
Indian nations which were the concessioners of lands to viiich they had
previously asserted a valid claim. That principle has been applied through-
out this Nation's history and throughout the history of the Supreme Court.
Reference in that connection is made to Mcintosh . It is enphasized, ix-
re^jective of the shameful concepts imposed upon Indians by the potentates of
Europe, that they could not transfer title. It was, nevertheless, recognized,
by the Supreme Court in the case in question, that they could only be deprived
of their interest in the lands from time imnatorial by treaty, purchase or,
indeed, the brutality of conquest.
Suggested reading, to the authors of "The Dissent," is the first Indian
treaty entered into between the United States and an Indian nation while the
20/ Ccontinued) He shall have pov«r, by and with the Advise and Consent
of the Senate, to nake Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators
present concur "
Cognizance must be taken of the fact that cession did not, indeed, could
not, under the circumstances of the Indian treaties, destroy sovereignty
because sovereignty was invoked to nake the cessions respecting terri-
tory. There is not a treaty where the entire sovereign authority, as
stated by "The Dissent," was "lost."
21/ Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary.
93-440 O - 78 - 31
448
-20-
colonists were in the bitter struggle for independence during the Pevolutionary
War. That treaty, in explicit terms, recognized the Delaware Nation and this
Nation as acting as equal sovereigns. 22/ It is reiterated that; prior to
the Constitution, and now, this Nation recognizes the inherent sovereign power
of the Indian nations.
Subsequent Indian treaties did not obliterate the sovereignty of the
Indian tribes; rather, they established and recognized the Indians had tte
sovereign rights to enter into the treaties. It is worthy of note that
vixen Congress declared — unilaterally — that "No Indian nation or tribe
within the Territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recog-
nized as an independent nation, tribe or power with whom the United States
nay contract by treaty " there was added this extremely inportant pro-
viso viMch is effective today:
"But no obligation of any treaty lawfully made and
ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe prior
to March 3, 1871, shall be hereby invalidated or im-
paired. " 23/ [Emphasis supplied]
By that proviso, there was continued recognition by the Congress of the United
States that the tribes had exercised their sovereign powers — inherent from time
immemorial — to enter into covenants and agreements with this Nation. Those
covenants and agreements were, and are, part of the Supreme law of the Land.
22/ Treaty with the Delaware Nation, Act of September 17, 1778, 7 Stat.
13.
23/ 25 U.S.C. 71.
449
-21-
Full iitpact of that statute has never been finally determined. But, there
is a finality to it: There were approximately 400 treaties in existence
in 1871, v*ien the Congressional Act became law. Their sovereignty continues
as of this nonent and it is a shocking concept advanced by "The Dissent" to
say that the sovereignty of the tribes, vAio entered into treaties, could, in
sane way, be destroyed by the cessions which were usually contained in those
covenants.
d. There is no merit in the assertion in "The Dissent"
"... that American Indian tribes lost their sover-
eignty ty. . . statutes " 24/
There has been reviewed above, the fact that by ej^licit
terms the Congress of the United States has, in effect, ratified and approved
innumerable treaties signed by Indian nations and tribes with the National
Government. In so doing, there has been confirmed by the Congress the
fact that treaties, as recognized by the Supreme Court, are the Si^ireme Law
of the Land. A diligent search has failed to reveal, as asserted in "The
Dissent," that in sotns manner the Congress has enacted "statutes" that re-
peal the quoted excerpt which declared that treaties in existence in 1871
would continue valid and effective. Hence, it is erroneous to state that
Congress had, in some iranner, destroyed the treaties pursuant to which, on
24/ The Dissent, pgs. 4-5.
450
-22-
thousands of occasions each day, the Executive Branch of the National Qovemitent
and the Judicial Branch of the National Government continue to function. Thus,
quite aside form Congress, tribal sovereignty is confirmed by the long-term con-
duct of the Executive and Judicial Branches of the United States.
"The Dissent" ignores the fact that the plenary power of the Congress re-
lates only to legislative fimctions. Any doubt about that subject is found in
the established authorities in vMch language of this character is used:
"In the main. . . that instrument [the Constitution] . . -. has
blocked out vri. th singvilar precision and in bold lines, in
its three primary Articles, the allotment of power to the
Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Departments of
the Government. It remains also true, as a general rule,
that the powers that have been conferred by the Constitu-
tion to one of these Departnents cannot be exercised by
another." 25/
Regarding the division and separation of powers of government, as set forth in
the Constitution, J\;istice Story stated this:
"The object of the Constitution was to establish three great
departnents of government The first to pass the laws,
the second to, approve and execute them, and the third to ex-
pound and enforce them." 26/
Sinplistically stated, Indian affairs and the day-to-day operation of
them, of necessity under our Constitution, are conducted by the Executive
Branch of the Federal Government. Daily, the Federal and other courts have
before them, for consideration, on-going cases initiated and prosecuted by
the Indian nations and tribes pursuant to their treaties. Quite obviously.
25/ Kilboum V. Thoneson, 103 U.S. 168, 191 (1880).
26/ Martin v. Hunter, 14 U.S. 304, 328 (1816).
451
-23-
both the Executive Branch and the Judiciary recognize the sovereign status
of tribes upon which Oongress did not confer sovereignty. Equally obvious,
in doing that, the Executive and Judiciary are reflecting the concepts
of "The Dissent." Ihey are practically and pragmatically saying, "Yes, the
Indian tribes have sovereignty and we recognize that sovereignty, albeit the
Congress did not confer that sovereignty much less destroy it." The state-
rtent in "The Dissent" that, by statute, the Congress had destroyed sover-
eignty is an unfortunate, perteps even frivolous, declaration. It must be
recognized by all that tribes today are exercising their inherent power over
land, water, tmfcer and minerals. They are likewise administering schools
and other public institutions. One must, of necessity, recoil fron the
concept that those functions are ultra vires . It is irresponsible to declare
tribes have no power independent of the plenary power of Congress. Congress,
by confirming treaties and otherwise, has explicitly recognized the tribes
have power of the highest dignity. Congress at no time destroyed sovereignty.
Congress well knows its daily and historic conduct belies that fact. The
treaties take cognizance of the fact that the Indians, long prior to discov-
ery and down to this rromant, have been and are now exercising their sover-
eignty.
Congress, rather than enacting statutes to destroy Indian sovereignty,
has wisely, and on numerous occasions, taken advantage of Indian sovereignty
and relied i^wn it as a modus operandi to accorplish its policies. Most
recently, Congress, in good conscience, enacted the "Indian Self -Determina-
tion Act." In that 1975 Act of Congress, it is declared that:
452
'"Uie Congress. . . finds that:
(2) The Indian people will never surrender their
desire to control their relationships both
aitong themselves and with ncn- Indian govern-
ments, organizations, and persons." 27/
The "desire" which Congress recognizes which the Indians will "never sur-
render" is their inherent authority to manage their own affairs.
Any doubt of present Congressional authority as to the continued ex-
istence of Indian tribal authority is obliterated by this quotation from
the last cited Act:
"The Congress declares its conmitment to the itainten-
ance of the Federal Government's unique and continuing
relationship with and responsibility to the Indian
people through the establishment of a meaningful Indian
self-determination policy v*iich will permit an orderly
transition from Federal domination of programs for and
services to Indians to effective and meaningful par-
ticipation by the Indian people in the planning, con-
duct and administration of those programs and services." 28/
Thus it is, as recently as 1975, the Congress has expressed, in unequiv-
ocal terms, that it does recognize that the Indian people have the authority
and are now exercising the sovereign powers of self-government. It is ex-
tremely important also to note that the Self -Determination Act can
result in, to use the words of Franklin Roosevelt, destroying the
autocratic power of the Department of the Interior as it relates to Indian
nations and tribes. It must be recognized that bureaucratic suppression of
Indian nations' and tribes' sovereignty does not obliterate that sovereignty.
27/ 25 U.S.C. 450(2), Pub. L. 96-638, Section 2, January 4, 1975, 88 Stat.
2203.
28/ 25 U.S.C. 450(a), Pub. L. 96-638, Section 3, January 4, 1975, 88 Stat.
2203.
453
-25-
Daily, an intransigent bureaucxacy, going far beyond its vested auth-
ority, is iirposing its bureaixxatic will i^on the Indian people. Often, the In-
dians are powerless in the face of the entrenched, and often vicious, bureaix:-
rats, vvho will at all costs maintain their pcMer of sippression. That bureauc-
racy can be pierced only by the President himself.
e. There is no merit in the assertion in "The
Dissent" "... that American Indian tribes
lost their sovereignty by. . . history. "
History, we are told, is:
"3: A branch of knowledge that records and ej^lains
past events and steps in the sequence of human ac-
tivities." 29/
A most careful review of Mcintosh , Cherokee Nation and the other references,
relied upon by "The Dissent," fails to disclose in anyvey that history could
be responsible for the alleged, erroneous statement that the Indians had lost
their sovereignty. What the statement does mean, is this: To achieve a
predicate for a fallacious argunent, a conposite and a coalescence of words,
including history, were broijght together with the objective of arriving
at a conclusion that cannot be sustained. "The Dissent," therefore, must
be recognized as an embodiitent of political hope that can engender an attack
upon the Indian people vrfiich will suppress their Indian sovereignty. In-
dian tribes and people, and those who support them, are fully cognizant that
29/ Vfebster's Third New International Unabridged Dictionary .
454
-26-
"The Dissent" is being utilized for just the purpose, to which reference has
been made, to inflame and engender attacks vpon Indian people, who have had
the temerity to assert that non-Indians have no right to invade their reser-
vations and to take from th^i their lands, their vater, their timber and
other invaluable resources.
f . There is no merit separately or in the aggre-
gate, as expressed in "The Dissent" "that Amer-
ican Indian tribes lost their sovereignty through
(1) discovery; (2) conquest; (3) cession;
(4) treaties; (5) statutes; and (6) history."
Finally, let it be reaffirmed and reiterated that the quoted
statements that the sovereignty of the American Indians has been lost through
each of the explicit words, set forth above, are gravely in error. It is equally
clear that a coalescence of each of the terms, discovery through history, failed
to bring about the loss of sovereignty to the American Indians.
rtost explicitly, the authorities relied i5X)n and the subsequent cases
cited reject, out of hand, the concept that there is no Indian tribal sover-
eignty residing in the tribes. It is manifest that the conclusions in "The
Dissent" are, as stated above, intended to be utilized politically in attacks
i5»n the American Indian nations and tribes. It partakes of a predicate that
can be utilized in attacks upon the Indian, but let this thought be advanced
here: The Indian tribes, and those vdio support than, in their desire to ex-
ercise self-government, have faith in the American people, have faith in the
institutions of America and the formidable body of law supporting Indian
people, vAiich, in the long-run, will prove effective against the special in-
455
terests vAio have so frequently endeavored, down through the long history
of Indian affairs, to destroy the Indian tribes.
E. "The Majority Report" Correctly Declares that the American
Indian Tribes, by their Treaties, Reserve to Ihanselves ,
Title to their I^nds, Rights to the Use of Water, and Other
Resources vAiich were not Conveyed by Treaty, Agreenents or
Otherwise
Throughout "The Majority Report," repeated references are made
to the concepts, expressed hy the Si;55reme Court, in the cases of United
States V. Winans 30/ and in the Winters decision. 31/ In both those de-
cisions, and decisions vfcLch were to follow them, the power, the authority
and the effectiveness of Indian nations and tribes, reserving to them-
selves all that they did not convey to the states, are esqilicitly declared
and explicitly upheld.
It is stated and reiterated in "The Majority Report," that through
the exercise of their inherent power of self-govemrtent , the tribes have
retained to themselves that vMch they did not grant; and the tribes have
the power to administer and control the properties which they retained pur-
suant to their treaties.
In precisely the same manner as the existence of Indian tribal sover-
eignty has been challenged in "The Dissent," there is further attack, in
"The Dissent," upon the rights and interests v#iich the Indian nations and
tribes have reserved for themselves.
30/ 198 U.S. 371 (1905).
31/ 207 U.S. 564 (1908).
456
F. The Aiterican Indian Nations and Tribes, by their Treaties ,
Retain — In the Exercise of their Inherent Sovereign Powers
— All of their Ancient Homelands and ^^purtenant Properties
They did not Grant to the United States by their Treaties
There has been reviewed in detail by "The Majority Report," the
inherent sovereign powers of the ArtErican Indian nations and tribes. There
tes been reviewed, moreover, in detail, that "The Dissent" is without merit.
Regarding the most crucial sentence in that "Dissent" : "... American Indian
tribes lost their sovereignty..." by discovery and other means, it continues
to assail "The Majority Report." This inquiry is presented under the
subheading, "II. WhD Did the Reserving?" Continuing in error, "The Dissent"
has this to say:
"In support of its argument that Indian tribes by treaty
have retained to themselves inherent power of self-gov-
emitent, [The Majority Report] relies i^jon United States
v. Winans , 198 U.S. 371, 25 S. Ct. 662 (1905).
That quoted statement is gravely in error. "The Majority Report" relies
upon an abundance of authority — in addition to the Winans case — v*iich
autharities were rendered by the Supreme Court and other courts antecedent
to and subsequent to Winans . Continuing in error, this additional statement
frcm "The Dissent" must be given particular attention by reason of its fun-
damental error:
"It is true that there is dictum in that case [ Winans]
to the effect that the treaty in that case 'vas not a
grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of right
from them, a reservation of those not granted. " 32/
Because of the crucial aspect of Winans and the misrepresenation that the last
32/ The Dissent, pg. 23 et seq .
457
quoted excerpt from it was dictim, it is essential to consider the basic issues
here to be considered and to be supported by full and correct documentation:
1. Winans proves and is authority for the proposition beyond
successful challenge, that the sovereign power of tribes
over their properties, held and occupied by than frcm tine
inmeiTorial were reserved to the extent that they were not
specifically granted by their treaties;
2. Winans proves, beyond question, that the Indian nations and
tribes, v^ien they exercise their sovereign powers to enter
into treaties, vrere proceeding at the highest dignity of
sovereignty when they executed the treaties, when they ceded
the lands described in the treaties, and when they retained
all that they did not grant by their treaties.
A review, in depth, of Winans is thus fully warranted. In explicit terms,
vMch "The Dissent" cannot countenance, the Supreme Court of the United
States correctly held — not dictum — that the Yakima Indian Nation reserved
properties vrfiich it did not convey. It retained title to those properties.
More iirportantly, frcm the standpoint of those who si^jport the Indian people,
the (jongress of the United States recognized full title in regard to those
reserved pn^serties viiich were not granted by the Tribe. 33/ On that back-
ground, reference is made to this erroneous conclusion in "The Dissent":
"So, as I have rejected the broad assertion of inher-
ent tribal sovereignty, I also reject the broad asser-
tion that tribal Indians have reserved to themselves
inherent rights of self-government and property."
Properly to evaluate the specific and general errors contained under the
heading, in "The Dissent," "II. Who Did the Reserving?" it is manifest that a
33/ See Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States 348 U.S. 272, 279, 280 (1955),
458
-30-
full review of the Winans case must be made. It is important to observe,
however, that there are nonsequitiirs in "The Dissent." Seemingly, it has
been written on the misconception that the tribes "reserved" self-govern-
ment. That self-government was not reserved. It was, as stated above,
passed on from generation unto generation of the forebearers of the Aoner-
ican Indians of today. Although that tribal sovereignty is si:ppressed
in many ways, it has never been destroyed. It is the objective of "The
Majority Report" to guarantee that the sovereign rights of these indepen-
dent people will continue.
Relative to the facts and background of the Winans decision, the most
crucial feature of that decision is the posture of the United States of
America in negotiating and consumnating the treaty, thus recognizing, by
the treaty itself, that not only did the Yakama Indian Nation have the
power to enter into that arranganent of such great dignity, but it also
was the owner of the land and the appurtances to the land retained by the
Yakama Indian Nation. It was on the 9th day of June, 1855, that the
Yakama Treaty was entered into. The words that vrere used in the Treaty
partake of sovereignty. There, it is declared that the parties entered
into:
"Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded
at the treaty-ground, Camp Stevens, Walla-Walla Valley. . .
by and between Issac I. Stevens, governor and superinten-
dent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washington,
on the part of the United States, and the undersigned
head chiefs, chiefs, head-^tien, and delegates of the Yaka-
mas, Palouse, et al... confederated tribes and bands of
Indians, occupying lands hereafter bounded and described
and lying in Washington Territory, vt)o for the purpose
459
of this treaty are to be considered as one nation , under
the name of 'Yakama' , with Kanaia)aai as its head chief on be-
half of and acting for said tribes and bands, and being
fiiLly authorized thereto by them." 3V [Biphasis supplied]
Following that initial recital — v*u.ch takes cognizance of the sovereignty
of the assembled tribes — the Treaty provisions continue: "It is declared
as follows:
Article 1. The aforesaid confederated tribes and bands
of Indians hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the
United States all their right, title, and interest in and
to the lands and country occupied and claimed by them,
and bounded and described as follows,..."
Following that declaration, there is set forth in the Treaty a descrip-
tion of a vast area of land in the central portion of the present State
of Washington. It is essential to ke^ in the foreground, however, that
the United States, as a sovereign, accepted a conveyance from the "Yakama"
Nation as a sovereign. Throughout the covenant, the sovereignty of the
Yakima Indian Nation was repeated fully, ej^licitly and, 1^ the very terms
of the arrangement, the United States was proceeding on the basis that it
was invoking its sovereignty paralleling the sovereignty of the Indian
Nation there involved. It is then provided in the Treaty between the sov-
ereigns as follows:
"Article 2. There is, however, reserved, from the
lands above ceded for the use and occupation of the
aforesaid confederated tribes and bands of Indians,
the tract of land included within the following boun-
dciries, towit. ..."
34/ Indian Treaties 1778-1883, Kappler's, Third Print (1975).
460
There is, following that pronouncement in the Treaty, a description of ap-
proxirtately one and a half million acres of land retained by the Yakiina
Indian Nation at the tiite, and today title to that acreage resides in the
YakiiiB Indian Nation. Moreover, the Yakima Indian Nation, today, is exer-
cising its sovereignty over those properties. What exists today was oon-
teirplated in 1855, for it is explicitly provided in the Treaty that the
lands that were retained — not granted — by the Yakima Indian Nation
were, and are, for the "... exclusive use and benefit..." for the tribes
"... at an Indian reservation " "And the said confederated tribes and
bands agree to remove to, and settle i^xDn, the same, within one year after
the ratification of this treaty...." 35/ Following the specific language,
relative to the lands of the reservation which were retained, not granted
by the Treaty, this crucial proviso, in the Treaty, was set forth in the
Winans case with specificity:
"The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams
vtere running through or bordering said reservation, is
further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of
Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual
and accustatied places . . . . " [Biphasis supplied]
The erphasized portion of the quotation, relative to the "usual and accus-
tored places of fishing," is of extreme inportance - by reason of the fact that
those extensive fisheries were retained by the Tribe off of the reservation.
There, this cones into issue: Does the sovereign power of the Yakima Indian
Nation extend beyond the confines of the reservation? An affirmative answer,
35/ Id., pg. 669.
461
-33-
relative to the subject, is set forth by the Suprene Court. Because of the
irrportance of the language of the Court in refuting "The Dissent," that
language will be quoted and reviewed in some detail.
Challenges to the Yakima Treaty rights of fishery were the sternest.
Winans , or their predecessors, claiited title to the lands on v*iich were
located scire of the "places" where the Yakima had, frcxn time iimemorial ,
usually and custonarily fished. Those patents were fran the United States
of America, issued by the Secretary of the Interior. They were, moreover,
issued by that official without reference to the Treaty provisos respecting
the off -reservation fishing so ejqalicitly set forth in the Treaty. It is
most significant that Winans and the others, who challenged the Treaty pro-
visos, held licenses fran the State of Washington respecting the shore-
lands of the Columbia River, upon which the patented lands fronted. That
is significant because the State of Washington, a party to the proceedings
in Winans , asserted ownership to the bed of the stream upon the concept that,
vpon admission into the Union, on an equal footing with all other states,
it had succeeded to the exclusive ownership of the bed of the Columbia River
which was navigable. Thus, ve have twD powerful sovereigns, the Nation and
the state, testing the propriety of the Yakima Indian Nation exercising its
inherent sovereign power to leave the reservation and to exercise its pro-
prietary interests in the Columbia River, which was miles away frcm the
reservation. Mding to the stemess of the test of the Yakima's sover-
eignty and its proprietary rights in the Columbia River, the State of
462
-34-
Washington had issued to Winans and the others licenses for the purpose of
installing and naintaining devices — known as fishwheels — for the taking
of saliton.
When the Highest Court iqsheld the Treaty rights of fishery off of the
Yakirta Indian Reservation — establishing beyond question the dignity of
the Treaty, and overriding both the patents issued by the National Govern-
ment and licenses issued by the State of Washington, vfcLch claimed title
to the bed of the stream — it said this:
"The right to resort to the fishing places in contro-
versy was a part of larger rights possessed by the
Indians, upon the exercise of vMch there was not a
shadow of inpediment, and \diich were not much less
necessary to the existence of the Indians than the
atmosphere they breathed." 36/
The Court continued, relative to the modification of the title and interest
of the Yakima Indian Nation stemming frcm the Treaty and the rights of fish-
ing that were reserved in that Treaty. It said this:
"New conditions caite into existence [the advent]
of the whitonan] to vfeLch those rights had to be
accommodated. Only a limitation of them [the rights
of fishery under the Treaty] , hov«ver, was necessary
and intended, not a taking away."
It was then that the Court declared this cnx:ial language — the main and prin-
cipal thrust of the Winans decision and not " dictum , " as "The Dissent" would
have us believe:
36/ United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381 a905) .
463
"In other words, the treaty was not a grant of rights
to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them — a
reservation of those rights not granted. " 37/ [Elrphasis]
It is worthy of note that the Court, having declared the nature of the Treaty
as it pertained to the conveyance and the retention of title by the Yakima
Indian Tribe, said this: "And the form of the instnment [the Treaty] and
its language was adopted to that purpose." Further, the Court described the
nature of the entire proceedings between the sovereign United States and the
sovereign Yakima Nation in these terms:
"Reseirvations were not of particular parcels of land,
and oould not be ej^ressed in deeds as dealings be-
tween private individuals . The reservations were in
large areas of territory and the negotiations were
with the tribe." [Qtphasis supplied]
Ei<plicitly, recognizing that the Indian Nation was representing its citizenry,
the Court added this statement: "They reserved rights, however, to every in-
dividual Indian, as though named herein." It was, noreover, of extrene impor-
tance that the Court described the nature of the rights of fishery in terms
of real property law known as conveyancing. It said this: "They iitposed a
servitude upon every piece of land as though described herein." Thus, there
was a servitude iitposed, not only upon the lands patented by the Secretary
of the Interior, but vpon the claims of the State to the bed of the Columbia
River. In describing the nature and dignity of the "servitude" imposed upon
the lands of the United States and its grantees and upon the interests of the
State of Washington and its grantees, ths Highest Court made this very iitpor-
tant statement:
37/ Id., 198 U.S. 371, 381-382 (1905),
93-440 O - 78 - 30
464
"And the right [reserved in tlie Treaty by the Indians
for thatselves] was intended to be continuing against
the United States and its grantees as well as against
the State and its grantees."
There has been reviewed the main thrust of the Winans decision. In that
Doctrine, the Supreme Court recognized and reaffirmed:
1. The inherent sovereignty of the Indian people and the breadth
of its application.
2. Ihe Indian sovereignty cast the Indian people in the role of
grantor and the United States, grantee, lander the Yakima Treaty
in the Winans case.
3. The Indians reserved, as sovereigns exercising inherent power,
all the properties that they did not grant, including their
reservation and off-reservation fisheries.
4. The three great branches of the Government of the United States
were directly and immediately involved, all of them recognizing
the inherent power of the Yakima Indian Nation and, indeed, all
other Indian nations similarly situated as being sovereigns.
a. The Executive Branch of the Government negotiated and
consumtated the Treaty with the Yakima Indian Nation;
b. the Congress of the United States approved the Treaty;
c. the Judiciary vpheld the Treaty;
d. the Secretary of the Interior and the State of Wash-
ington were declared to be bound by that Treaty; and
e. the grantors and the grantees of the Secretary of the
Interior and of the State of Washington were bound by
the servitude imposed by the Yakima Nation upon prop-
erties outside of the reservation.
5. "The Dissent" is in grave error in seeking to attack the con-
cepts of Winters and Winans , all of which have been reviewed
above.
465
-37-
It is reocnmsnded that "The Dissent" reconsider its statement that it was the
United States and not the Yakima Nation that reserved the Yakima Indian Reser-
vation and the off -reservation fishing rights. It is further urged that
additional cxmsideration be given to the various cases vrfiere identically the
same concepts as contained in Winans have been reiterated and reaffirmed,
further demonstrating the error in "The Dissent."
1. The Winters Decision Must Be Read with the Winans Decision
If the Magnitude of the Errors in "The Dissent" are to be
Fully Carprehended
There has been reviewed, in sane detail, the authority of the Yakima
Indian Nation to reserve, not grant, its reservation and appurtenant off -reserva-
tion fishing rights. Three years later, the Supreme Court was to render the
Winters decision. 38/ There, the nature, extent and cteracter of the Treaty of
1855 with the Blackfoot Indians in Montana were considered. President Pierce, on
April 25, 1856, signed and sealed that Treaty. This Presidential act affirmed
"Articles of Agreeinent and Convention made and concluded between the United
States and the Blackfoot and other tribes, at council on the Upper Missouri
River..." vMch had been negotiated between the leaders of the Indians and
those of the United States. 39/ That Treaty, it will be observed, retained for
the Blackfoot Tribes, did not grant to the United States, a vast area in the
Upper Missouri Basin. It is essential to oiphasize that the 1855 Treaty of the
Blackfoot was a covenant vrfiich gave rise to what is known as the Winters Doctrine .
Following that Treaty, a covenant was entered into on May 1, 1888. The Court
38/ Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908).
39/ Treaty with the Blackfoot Indians, October 17, 1855, 11 Stat. 657
et seq . (Effective April 25, 1856) .
466
of Pippeals for the Ninth Circuit traced the unbroken chain of title of the
Blackfoot Nation down to the date last mentioned. It is inportant in re-
ferring to the Winters opinion in the Court of ;^)peals for the Ninth Circuit,
vAiich opinion was subsequently affirmed by the Sijpreme Court, to note this
inportant assertion:
"By the terms and provisions of this treaty, the Ft. Belk-
nap Indians [part of the group of Indians v*io signed the
1855 Treaty] reserved to themselves the 'uninterrupted
privileges of hunting, fishing, and gathering fruit, graz-
ing anitiHls, curing meat, and dressing robes.'" 40/
[Enphasis supplied]
It is equally inportant to note that the area set aside for the tribes, not
granted by them, embraced the Milk River, vAiich had its source in Montana
but entered Canada and returned back into the United States. It is equally
important that down through the years the National Government recognized
the 1855 Treaty, albeit at times, the National Government acted to limit the
area that was embraced within the Treaty. Negotiations, in that connection,
were entered into between the United States and the Ft. Belknap Indians, who
agreed to make changes in the area vdiich they were occupying.
On the subject raised by "The Dissent," as to "who did the reserving,"
this quotation frcxn the Court of ;^peals for the Ninth Circuit — later af-
firmed by the Si^ireme Court — is most important:
" [W] hen the Indians made the treaty granting rights to
the United States, they reserved the rights to use the
waters of Milk River at least to the extent reasonably
necessary to irrigate their lands. The right so reserved
continues to exist against the United States and its gran-
tees, as well as against the state [Montana] and its gran-
tees." [Eitphasis supplied]
40/ Winters v. United States, 143 Fed. 740, 741 (C.A. 9, 1906),
467
-39-
In the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the very essence
of the Winans concepts was reviewed in depth and those concepts were taken to
the Supreme Court for review. They were affirmed. In affirming the decision,
the Supreme Court drew heavily upon the lower court's rationale that (a) the
Indians were the owners of the rights to the use of water, which they retained
under the agreement of May 1, 1888; (b) the Indians were the grantors under
that agreement, retaining all of their right, title and interests in the res-
ervation which they did not convey to the United States; and (c) those rights
vested in the Indians there involved and retained by them were property in-
terests \*iich were vital for their existence and which interests — rights to
the use of water — were inrrune from interference from the State of Montana
or the laws enacted by it pertaining to those rights to the use of water. It
is worthy of note, to use the language of the Supreme Court, that Winters con-
tended to that Court:
"... the means of irrigation were deliberately given up
by the Indians and deliberately accepted by the Govern-
ment."
Having enphasized that the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation was arid, the Court
analyzed, in some detail, the requirements to nake the area "livable." 41/
It enphasized that the objective of the United States and the Indians entering
into the agreeinent was to have a place that was habitable for the Indians. The
Supreme Court, on that background, made this crucial statement:
"The Indians had conniand of the lands and the waters —
COTrmand of all their beneficial use..." for all purposes. 42/
41/ 207 U.S. 564, 576 (1908).
42/ 207 U.S. 654, 576 (1908).
468
-40-
Ir^aeed, the Si^jreme Court recounted the beneficial uses for which the Indians had
retained, did not grant, their rights. Those Indian rights could be applied
to "beneficial use, vAether the lands were kept for hunting, 'and grazing
roving herds of stock, ' or turned to agriciiLture and the arts of civiliza-
tiOTi." 43/
As the Siflsreine Court had initially stated in its opinion in Winters , the
issue was vrfiether the May 1, 1888, agreement with the Indians and the United
States was vitiated vrfien Montana was admitted into the Union in 1889. The Svp-
rame Court rejected that concept in ttese words: "... it would be extreme to
believe..." after the 1888 agreement was executed that "... Congress destroyed
the reservation and took from the Indians the consideration of their grant ,
leaving than a barren waste — took from them the means of continuing their old
habits, yet did not leave them the power to change to new ones." 44/ There
follows a review vfeLch coalesces the concepts of Winans and Winters .
2. Reaff inrence and Reiteration of Concepts of Winans
Dispel Any Merit vtoLch might otherwise be Attributed
to "The Dissent" Relative to the Retention by the
Tribes of Properties Not Granted to the United States
Relative to the conclusions and the gravity of the error com-
mitted by "The Dissent," reference is made to a case involving the precise issues
raised by "The Dissent." That decision removes all merit from the position taken
by "The Dissent." It reaffirms that when the Indians executed their treaties, re-
serving lands and appurtances to themselves, it was in the full exercise of their
43/ 207 U.S. 564, 577 (1908).
44/ 207 U.S. 564, 577 (1908),
469
inherent sovereign powers. 45/ In that case and in precise terms, the issues
decided were these:
1. It was the Yakiina Indian Nation — under the Treaty upheld in Winans -
that reserved rights to the use of water for the Yakima Indian Nation;
2. it was not the United States of America that retained the rights to
the use of water, rather it was a grantee under the Treaty;
3. the State of Washington had no jurisdiction in regard to the rights
to the use of water reserved by the Yakiina Indian Nation;
4. the Secretary of the Interior did not grant away the Yakima Indian
rights to the use of water, although he attettpted to do that.
In declaring that it was the Yakima Indians v*io reserved the rights to
the use of water involved in the flhtanum case and relying heavily upon Winans
and Winters , the Court of i^peals for the Ninth Circuit said this, citing
Winters and quoting from Winans :
"That the [Yakima] Treaty of 1855 reserved rights in and
to the waters of this stream for the Indians, is plain
from the decision iji Winters v. United States , 207 U.S.
564." 46/
Continuing in its reliance upon Winters and Winans , the Court, in Ahtanum , said
this:
"When the Indians agreed to change their nomadic habits
and to beccme a pastoral and civilized people, using the
snaller reservation area, it must be borne in mind, as
the Supreme Court said of this very [Yakima] treaty, that
'the treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but
a grant of rights frcm them — a reservation of those not
granted.' United States v. Winans , 198 U.S. 371, 381." 47/
45/ United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation District, et al., 236 F.2d. 321,
CCA. 9, 1956), cert , den . 256 U.S. 993 (1956); 330 F.2d. 897 (1965);
338 F.2d. 307 (1965); cert , den . 381 U.S. 924 (1965).
46/ 236 F.2d. 321, 325.
47/ 236 F. 2d. 321 U.S. 325-326 (C.A. 9, 1956).
470
There, the Court continued in langrjage that clearly icSentifies as error the
concepts of "Ihe Dissent," relative to the status of Indian nations and tribes
vAien they signed treaties:
"Before the treaty the Indians had the right to the use
not only of Ahtanum Creek but of all other streains in a
vast area. Ihe Indians did not surrender any part of their
right to the use of Ahtanim Creek regardless of whether the
Creek became the boundary or whether it flowed entirely
within the reservation." 48/ [Ehphasis supplied]
Explicitly and implicitly, the Ahtanum decision, like Winans and Winters ,
stated that the Indians were the grantors and the United States, grantee. The
Indians, in both Winters and Ahtanum, reserved to themselves, in the exercise
of the inherent sovereign power, the invaluable rights, the title to which was
invested in them frcm time iirmemDrial. It necessarily follows that the inves-
titure of title to those immemorial rights was not granted to them by the United
States. Rather, those rights had been part and parcel of the Yakima Indian
Nation antecedent to the "discovery" of the ^k^rth Amsrican^Cgrvfeinent. On the
subject, the Supreme Court recently made this conitient:
"It must always be remotibered that the various Indian tribes
were once independent and sovereign nations, and that their
claim to sovereignty long antedates that of our Government." 49/
That sovereignty continues to this ncment — albeit events have modified it.
3. Attenpts by "The Dissent" to Denigrate the Supreme Law
of the Land Must Fail
There have been reviewed, in explicit detail, the dignity and the
Iter its of the inherent sovereign power of the Yakiita Indian Nation to reserve.
48/ 236 F.2d. 321, 326.
49/ McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Ocstmissicn, 411 U.S. 164, 172 (1973),
471
by its Treaty of June 9, 1855, its reservation and properties off of the
vation. The pov^r in that Treaty stenming fron Indian sovereignty mast be con-
prehended. When that is acccnplished, the vacuity of "The Dissent" becoires mani-
fest. Reference in that regard is made to our Nation's organic law — the Con-
stitution — v*iich vas so fully invoked when the sovereign United States and the
sovereign Ya]cima Nation negotiated and concluded a treaty of peace. It most be
recognized that initially the powers of the President of the United States were
invoked and those powers are explicit in the Constitution, vMch declares:
"Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in the
President of the United States." 50/
Nature of the executive power is spelled out with specificity:
"Section. 2. The President shall be Ccmtander-in-Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States.,.." 51/
It was pursuant to that proviso that the Chief Executive of the United States, as
Carroander-in-Chief , waged war against the sovereign nation known as the "Yakamas."
It was, noreover, this power that brought about the Treaty, for it confers authority
on the President and declares that "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice
and Consent of the Senate to irake treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators
present concur "
It is most unfortunate that "The Dissent" finds it obligatory, apparently,
to assail the powers vested in the President ty the Constitution, to the end that
there can be assailed the dignity of the Indian inherent tribal sovereignty.
That "The Dissent" fails in its attack, both upon the dignity of this Nation
50/ Article II, Section. 1, Constitution of the United States, 1787.
51/ Article II, Section. 2, Constitution.
472
-44-
under its Ctonstitution and the Dignity of the "Yakama" Indian Nation, with wham
the covenant of peace was entered into by the Treaty in question, detracts very
greatly from any weight that might be ascribed to "The Dissent." That concliasion,
necessarily, stans fran the Constitution itself, v*iich provides as follows:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be itade in Pursuance thereof; and all Trea-
ties nade or vrtiich shall be made, under the authority
of the United States, shall be the Supreme. Law of the
Land. ..."
Lest anyone vould overlook that provision in our basic and fundamental law, the
Constitution continues in these words:
"And the JuSges in every State shall be bound thereby.
Anything in the Ccnstitution or Laws of any State to
the Contrary notwithstanding . " 52/
4. A Nonsequitur in "The Dissent" Demonstrates the
Paucity of Authority in Support of It
In the unsuccessful attack upon the inherent sovereign power of the
tribes to retain to themselves — not grant to the United States — their reser-
vations and appurtances, "The Dissent" seeks to bolster its conclusions by ref-
erence to the Akin decision. 53/ The substance of the Akin decision is this:
By v*iat is referred to as the McCarren Act, 54/ the United States is said to
have waived its sovereign iimnunity from suit in state courts in regard to general
adjudications involving federal rights to the use of water. That determination —
it is believed in error — was first declared in the Eagle River decision. 55/
In Eagle, this statement is made:
52/ Article VI, Clause 2, Constitution of the United States, 1787,
53/ Colorado River Water Conservation District, et al. v. United States,
74-940, 74-949, Akin, et al. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).
54/ 43 U.S.C. 666.
55/ U.S. V, District Court in and for the County of Eagle, 401 U.S. 520,
522-523 (1971).
473
"As we said in Arizona v. California , 373 U.S. 546, the
Federal Govemitent had the authority both before and after
a State is admitted into the Union 'to reserve waters for
the use and benefit of federally reserved lands.' Id. at
597. The federally reserved lands included any federal
enclave. In Arizona v. California , vte were primarily con-
cerned with Indian reservations. Id. at 598-601."
Adhering to its earlier statement in Eagle, the Suprane Court declared that the
Act was applicable to the Southern Ute Tribe and subjected its rights to the use
of \aater to the jurisdiction of the state court.
Predicated upon the McCarren Act and its waiver of federal immunity fran
suit, "The Dissent" says this:
"Accordingly, since the McCarren Amendment provided the
consent necessary to sue the United States, and since the
Indian water rights were among federal water rights subject
to the McCarren Amendment, it follov^d that Indian water
rights could be litigated and determined in an action
against the United States." 56/
Errors pervade that last quoted staterent. Indian property rights — in-
cluding rights to the use of water — are not "federal rights." They are not,
moreover, "public rights" as that term is generally used. Rather, they are pri-
vate rights to the use of water, the invasion of v*iich requires the payment of .
just cortpensation. 57/
56/ "The Majority Report," pg. 24.
57/ "Redbook," pg. 67. Federal Eininent Danain, Department of Justice Sec. 15.
What cx3nstitutes 'private property' under the Fifth Amendment, page 56.
N. Prcjperty of Indian wards. - As guardian of the Indian wards, the United
States has the power of management and cxxitrol over lands occupied by the
tribes or Indian allottees. Such lands prior to some division or allotment
in severalty, are held by the tribe in ccmtiDn. VJhile strict legal title
is often in the United States, under the treaties, statutes, or executive
orders creating their reservations, the Indian tribes usually have a full
beneficial interest, described as a 'right of perpetual use and occi:pancy. '
Since this right is not to be narrowly construed, the tribal interest has
been treated for all practical purposes as equivalent to ownership of the
land itself. Thus when there is taJang of the vdiole tribal interest within
474
-46-
It is essential to sharply differentiate Indian rights from federal rights.
The failure to recognize the difference is one of the most serious deficiencies
in "The Dissent." Continuing in reliance upon the McCarren Act and the Akin
decision, waiving the National Government's immmity frcm state court jurisdic-
tion involving general adjijdications of rights to the use of water, "The Dissait"
says this:
"In short, the Court [in Akin ] was saying that there was
no Indian reserved rights but, rather, only federal rights
reserved for Indians."
That statement is in error. Reliance upon the A)dn decision for that erron-
eous proposition is a continuing error. Hence, when this statement is added,
it likewise adds error to that already made in "The Dissent":
"I make these renarks [that Indian rights are federal rights]
because, in my view, it is v*iolly erroneous to adopt, as this
Cartmission has, the position that trital Indians have reserved
to themselves all rights not specifically extinguished by
treaty." 58/
In regard to that last quoted stateitent, it is essential to atphasize that there
is great confusion in "The Dissent." Throughout that "Dissent," reseated ref-
erences are made to the inherent sovereignty of the tribes and the ownership
of property. That is, of course, incorrect. Tribal ownership of land and tribal
57/ (continued) the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, the Government must in-
clude as part of just cotpensation to the tribe the value of the natural
resources on the land such as timber or minerals. Certain profits a pren-
dre, such as the right to take fish or gather herbs, occasionally granted
to Indian tribes, are also regarded as property rights. Pages 76 & 77.
See page 66 — E. Interests in real property * * *.
See United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Company, 339 U.S. 725 (1950).
58/ The Dissent, pg. 25.
475
-47-
sovereignty are not even remotely synonotous. In the exercise of tribal sover-
eignty, Indian tribes execute treaties. By thDse treaties, all of the lands not
granted are reserved by the tribes to themselves. Sovereignty does not flow to
the tribes from ownership of land. Rather, the capacity of a tribe to own land
flows frcm sovereignty. The Winans and Winters decisions, reviewed above, are
precise and explicit authorities in support of the proposition that tribal own-
ership and tribal sovereignty are separate and distinct. In other words, the
power to own a title is and must be separated fran the title itself. Based upon
the erroneous concepts that, in sane itenner, the tribes reserved their title and
their properties by a treaty, "The Dissent" concludes as follows:
"So, as I have rejected the broad assertions of inherent
tribal sovereignty, I also reject the broad assertion
that tribal Indians have reserved to themselves inherent
rights to self-govemirent and property rights." 59/
In evaluating the lack of legal merit in "The Dissent," it is essential to
say this: Because the law, as it prevails in regard to (a) the inherent author-
ity of Indian tribes to exercise sovereign powers, including but not limited to
the negotiation and execution of treaties; and (b) in the exercise of the in-
herent powers, the Indian tribes were legally oatpetent, among other things,
to retain cill the lands they did not grant in full compliance with those treat-
ies, it necessarily follows that "The Dissent," v*iile presenting an agressive
anti-Indian sentiment, nevertheless does not offer substance vpon which that
aggressive anti-Indian sentiment can be successfully advocated, either legally
or morally.
59/ The Dissent, pg. 25.
476
5. "This Nation's Trust Responsibilities Rejected by
'The Dissent'" 6"o7
Throughout "The Dissent," there has been an attack upon the Nation's
relationship with the Indian nations, tribes and people. The assault, in effect,
vpon that relationship is sumnarized in that part of "The Dissent" called "Fed-
eral Indian Trust Relations and Social Vfelfare Programs." It is sufficient to
say tliat the social welfare prograirs are not the only aspects of the trust res-
ponsibility to v^ich reference is made under the heading in question. Rather,
it enbraces all phases and aspects of that relationship.
In responding to "The Dissent's" attack upon the trust obligation of the
United States to the Indian people, it is essential to refer to sane basic his-
toric facts. Anyone vdxa has considered the subject will agree that there has
been and is now an ambivalence in regard to Indian affairs since the Europeans
first encountered the Indians. "Love thy neighbor" — the Christian concept —
was attendant at the first encounter of the Europeans in the "New Vtorld" with
the Indian people. Another aspect of v*iat the Europeans brought without mercy
to the American Indians, tribes and people has been treachery, murder, confis-
cation and frequently genocide. Incredibly, the basic conflict between the
European society that fostered the United States of America remains today.
There is a strong mDrality vAiich is constantly in conflict with bigotry and
greed vMch vie, one with the other, in the treatment of the Indian people.
It must, of course, be recognized that the savagery of the Europeans far ex-
ceeded that of the "savages" vAio were allegedly occupying the land. The skills
in treachery and armed warfare of the Europeans did, of course, overcame sub-
stantial Indian resistance. But, the fact remains that,v*ile one coitrasting
60/ The Dissent, pg. 71 et seq .
477
-49-
gro\jp destroyed Indians, a powerful segment of the European society, at all tines,
desired fairly to deal vrith the Indians and to preserve and protect them against
the leadership that, through bigotry and greed, demanded Indian annihilation.
In "The Dissent," this statement is nade:
"It is clear that in most instances, the United States as
the victorious party, dictated the terms of the treaty and
reserved various parcels of land." 61/
Again, "The Dissent" has overstated the historic facts v*iich relate to the ear-
liest nrments of this Nation's history of Indian affairs, antecedent to the
Revolutionary War. It is essential to consider that history, because from it
emerges the basis upon which this Nation's trust obligation is predicated.
Moreover, it directly relates to the fiction of "discovery" and other fictions
v^ich the Europeans have applied to the Indians.
In the light of the circumstances which prevailed, the fiction that
"discovery" had seized title to their lands wDuld have been brushed aside by
the Indian nations had they been aware of them. Due to their warlike character-
istics and independent nature, many tribes withstood the European invaders from
discovery to the Revolutionary War. Because they were "powerful and brave,"
they were "dreaded as formidable enonies..." by the British. 62/ Tt> preserve
the peace it was essential to placate those powerful triles and Britain never
asserted "... claims to their lands," or asserted "dominiai over their per-
sons...." 63/ Because of the fighting powers of the Indians, it "did not enter
61/ The Dissent, pg. 25.
62/ Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 350, 371 (6 Pet, 515, 546) (1832) .
63/ Id.
478
-50-
the mind of any man" that the Crown charters issued by the King to land occupied
by Indian tribes envisioned that the colonists would govern those original owners
of the land. 64/ Fran the standpoint of the Indians, they readily accepted from
the Crown the price paid to them to maintain the peace "... so long as their
actual independence was untouched and their right of self-government acknow-
ledged " 65/
Adaitant refusal to accede to English dcminance, in practical effect, won
for the Indian nations concessions fron the Crown. 66/ In the contemplation of
the English law, the Indian nations " were admitted to be the rightful occu-
pants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of
it, and to use it according to their own discretion...." 67/
There was no outside interference with the Indian national affairs, "fur-
ther than to keep out foreign powers v*o might seduce them into foreign alli-
ances.. . ." 68/
Internal self-govemnent was g\iaranteed to than and the treaties Britain
entered into were acknowledged as solemn obligations it was obliged to keep.
That was "tte settled state of things when the war of our revolution was can-
menced." 69/
64/ Ibid. , at 369 (at 545) (1832) .
65/ Ibid. , at 371 (at 547) (1832).
66/ F. Thompson on Real Property, 1967 Replacement, Sec. 2713, pgs. 1095-
1096.
67/ Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. 543, 574 (8 Wheat. 543, 574) (1823) .
68/ 1 Kent's Ccmrrentaries, 13th Bi. , pg. 384.
69/ Vforcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 350, 372 (6 Pet. 515, 549) (1832) .
479
-51-
Throughout the var for independence, the colonists experienced great appre-
hension that the Indian nations vould, as allies of Great Britain, "add their
arms to hers." 70/ As a consequence, the Congress "Far fran advancing a claim"
to Indian lands or asserting dcminion over the Indians, resolved to foster and
preserve Indian friendship.
At the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War, the fragile Union
of sovereign states continued to desire most assiduously to maintain peace with
the powerful and warlike Indian tribes whose dominions bordered upon them, in-
deed, were interspersed among them. In furtherance of that policy, the National
Govemnent entered into treaties both with the Indian tribes that had allied
thenselves with Great Britain throughout the war of the revolution, and those
who were loyal to the colonists. 71/ Mutuality among nations was the postulate
of those treaties though they did reflect the pretenses of the British that
"protection" was being extended to the tribes by the United States. By thDse
covenants of the highest dignity among nations, captives taken by both the In-
dian nations and the states were exchanged and peace with everlasting friend-
ship vras agreed upon. Reference is warranted to the fact that throughout the
entire period v*ien bloody wars were fought to conquer and suppress the Indian
tribes, the United States always adhered to the policy that Indians v*o were
captured were not apprehended in treasonable conduct but rather as being sub-
ject to the ordinary articles of war.
70/ M.
71/ See, for exanple, Act of October 22, 1784 (1 Stat. 15),
93-440 O - 78 - 32
480
-52-
In the interlude between peace with Great Britain and the adoption of the
Constitution, the United States functioned as best it could under the Articles
of Confederation. Those Articles contained provisions respecting Indian affairs
vrfu-ch were inoperative — indeed, beyond ccnprehension. Nevertheless, there
was an invariable aspect as to the conduct of those affairs and the treaties
v*iich were entered into with the Indians. At all times, those original inhabi-
tants were recognized as being political communities of "naticaial character"
and having inherent rights "of self-govemmant . " 72/
Hamilton, Jay and ffedison, in their Federalist essays, ejqaressed the im-
perative need to have Indian affairs conducted pursuant to the Constitution
within the plenary jurisdiction of the Central Government they were propos-
ing. 73/ It was readily recognized that the states were imwilling or unable
to restrain the aggressions of their citizens against the Indians, with the
attendant frequent and often dreadful wars. 74/ Moreover, the Indian nations
on the borders vere a threat to the Union as possible allies of European powers. 75/
It was in the contenplation of those facts as reflected in part by The
Federalist that the Constitution of the United States, 1787, provides: "The
Congress shall have Power ...to regulate Connerce with foreign nations, and among
the several states, and with the Indian tribes...." 76/ Full power over Indian
72/ Wbrcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 350, 379 (6 Pet. 515, 560) (1932) .
73/ The Federalist , Hamilton, Jay, Madison.
74/ The Federalist , No. 3, Jay, pg. 44.
75/ The Federalist , No. 25, Hamilton, pg. 163.
76/ Constitution of the United States, 1787, Article I, Sec. 8, CI. 3.
481
affairs is thus the province of Congress. 77/ It is, as stated, elarental that
the Constitution, the laws, and all treaties, "shall be the si^srane Law of the
land " 78/ Treaty-making resides with the President, acting "... by and with
the Consent of the Senate... provided tv«-thirds of the Senators present con-
cur...." 79/
It is important that the Constitution was initially applied to Indian
affairs by Justices in the formative years, vrfio vere statesmen at the time of
its adoption. Respecting Indian treaties, those Justices declared, "... the
words 'treaty' and 'nation'... each have definite and veil-understood meaning.
We have applied them to Indians and, as we have applied them to other nations
of the earth; they are applied to all in the same sense." 80/
Elemental precepts for the construction to be placed upon the Constitution
declare that contemporaneous writings are to have ascribed to thsm sxabstantial
weight. 81/ For that reason, it is inportant to itBintain in focus the fact that
the most crucial decisions of the Supreme Court were written by Justices whD
were fully cognizant of the inherent sovereignty of the Indian nations vAiich,
as McClanahan recently stated, predates that of this Nation.
It is also inportant in establishing the dignity, nature, and extent of
Indian sovereignty to consider legislation adopted at a time when Congress it-
self was groping to ascertain the true measure of its authority in the realm of
77/ Id.
78/ Ibid . , Art. VI, CI. 2.
79/ Ibid . , Art. II, Sec. 2, CI. 2.
80/ Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 350, 379 (6 Pet. 515, 559-560(1832).
81/ tfcCulloch V. Maryland, 17 U.S. 159, 211; (14 Wheat. 316, 433) (1819)
482
-54-
Indian relations. In 1789, there vas established the Department of War adminis-
tered by a Secretary of cabinet status. 82/ A prime responsibility of that Sec-
retary was Indian affairs. Peace, however, not war with the Indian nations was
an inperative necessity. Funds vrere provided by Congress to negotiate treaties
with those nations. 83/ Non- Indian violations of the Indian treaty rights
creating issues so great tliat President George Washington urged in his Nov-
enijsr 4, 1792, itessage that legislation be enacted to restrain criittes against
the Indian people. Without it, said the first President, the "pacific plans"
vhich had been prcanulgated in the broad field of Indian affairs would be "nug-
gatory. " 84/ Similar legislation was enacted on March 1, 1793, to protect the
Indians. It presaged the full application of a federal policy affording — in
theory at least — the mantle of Constitutional protection for the dependent
Indian nations.
In 1802, Congress gave Constitutional sanction and protection to the in-
herent right of Indians to exercise their powers of self -govemitient . 85/ The
federal policy \«s trade with the Indian tribes and "to preserve the peace with
then." 86/
82/ Act of August 7, 1789 (1 Stat. 49) .
83/ Act of Augiist 20, 1789 (1 Stat. 54).
84/ Federal Encroachment On Indian Water Rights And The Irpairment of Reser-
vation Development, 91st Cong. , 1st sess. , * * * A Corrpendium of Papers
* * * Joint Economic Committee * * * Vol. 2, pg. 486, footnote 84.
85/ Act of March 30, 1802 (2 Stat. 139) .
86/ Id.
483
-55-
Rapid accession by the United States of vast tracts of former Crown lands
became a matter of transcendent iirportance . Under the Constitution, the Con-
gress had exclusive and plenary power over them. 87/ In keeping with that power,
it had established a government to administer vihat was the Northv;est Territory. 88/
Indian nations under treaties with the United States oocipied that vast wilder-
ness vrfiich subsequently would became the States of Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Michi-
gan and Wisconsin. 89/ Though Congress e:q)ressed a vague intent to protect
those Indian nations and their people, it proceeded on the basis that the ultimate
title to those former Crown lands resided with the United States. 90/
In 1803, the United States acquired fron France the vast area west of the
Mississippi River, referred to as the Louisiana Purchase. It "... is justly re-
garded as one of the most iitportant events in ftmerican history," with far reach-
ing iitport "in the development of the United States Indian policy." 91/
For the great Indian nations occi^jying lands between the Atlantic coast
and the Mississippi River, the louisiana Purchase was the death knell. It
would be the repository for those Indians.
Hence, the virtually unlimited lands west of the Mississippi River of-
fered an area for a forced exodus fron the eastern states v*iere the feared
87/ Constitution of the United States, 1787, Article IV, Sec. 3, CI. 2.
88/ 1 Kent's Comrentaries , 13th Ed., pg. 286, s. 259; 1 Story, On The
Constitution, 5th Ed., 1891, pg. 16, s. 33.
89/ 1 Kent's Camentaries , 13th Bd. , pg. 286, s. 259.
90/ Johnson V. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. 543, 576, 584 (8 Wheat. 543, 576, 584) (1823) .
91/ 1 Annual Report of the American Historical Assn., 1906 Abel, Ch. 1,
pg. 241.
484
-56-
and often hated Indians could be ranoved. In 1803, the first explicit official
statement was itade to rid the lands east of the Mississippi of Indians. In
that year. President Jefferson, in a never-to-be-adqpted amendment to the Con-
stitution, under prescribed circumstances, proposed the renoval of "... Indians
within the U.S. on the east side of the Mississippi..." to the newly acquired
"province of Louisiana" west of the Mississippi. It also provided Indian right
of occi^jancy in the soil "... and of self-govemment, are confirmed in the
Indian inhabitants, as they now exist." 92/
On the background of the history of Indian affairs, down to and after the
Louisiana Purchase, it was abundantly clear that the Nation was making ccmtnit-
ments continuing in character, vAiich corrmitments partook of solotm covenants.
At all times thereafter, the United States acknowledges desire to have the In-
dians reduce their land claims by treaties and other cessions. In return for
those concessions, covenants were spelled out between the Indians and this
Nation, both in treaties and otherwise. Thus, there was and is a continuing
covenant that the Indian people, residing on reservations, vrould have the full
support then and in the future relative to their lives and their subsistence.
In due time, there evolved v*at was referred to as the trust relationship be-
tween the National Government and the Indians. Those were the circumstances
of Indian affairs and relationships when the United States Supreme Court ren-
dered its opinions in 1831 and 1832 of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 93/
and Worcester v. Georgia .
92/ 1 Annual Report of the American Historical Assn., 1906 Abel, Ch. 1, pg. 241.
93/ Federal Encroachment of Indian Water Rights and the Iiipairment of Reservation
Developrent in Subcontnittee on Econorny in Government of the Joint Eoonotdc
Cotmittee, 91st Cong. , 1st Sess. , Ccftm. Towards Efconcmic Development for
Native American Cwnmunities Conmittee (Print. 1969) pages 460, 490-493;
485
-57-
In ej^licit terms, the Highest Court, vd.th full information as to the cov-
enants and cxantnitments made to the Indian pecple, enunciated the predicate for
the trust relationship. In those several decisions that were entered 63wn
through the years, there was clarified, and substantial advancements were nade
in the responsibility of the trustee to the Indian people. It developed in ac-
cordance with ordinary trust law that the National Government must act solely
and entirely for and on behalf and in furtherance of the Indian interests.
Moreover, the obligation of the trustee United States is always to perform its
functions with the highest degree of care, skill and diligence in performing
its trust oblitation.
Different facts may vary fron tribe to tribe as to the manner in which
the trust must be performed by the National Government and the agents. That
the trust obligation may vary from reservation to reservation in no way
causes the obligation of the Nation to change in connection with its trust
obligation. Then it is thus concluded that the United States of America has
a legal, equitable and moral obligation as trustee which is clear beyond ques-
tion, irrespective of the commantary contained in "The Dissent."
93/ (continuedl Reprinted in Hearings on Administrative Practices and Proced-
xires Relating to Protection of Indian Natural Resources before the Subconm.
on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Sen. Conm. on the Judiciary,
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. , Part 1 at 175, 191-192.
Chambers, Discharge of Federal Trust Responsibility to Enforce Claims of
Indian Tribes: Case Studies of Bureaucratic Conflicts of Interest Coram,
in Subconm. on Administrative Practices and Procedures of the Senate Conm.
of the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 2nd Sess., A Study of Administrative Con-
flicts of Interest in the Protection of Indian Natural Resources, 11 Cc«rm.
Print. 1971, Reprinted in the Hearing on Administrative Practices and Pro-
cedures Relating to the Protection of Indian Natural Resources before the
Subcom. on Administrative Practices and Procedures of the Senate Conm. on
the Judiciary, 92nd Cong,, 1st Sess., Part 1 at 235, 238-248 (1971).
-58-
It is on the background of the Svpreme Law of the Land that reference
is now made to the plenary power of Congress and the failure of the Execu-
tive Branch properly to perform its responsibilities relative to Indian
affairs.
G. Congress Cannot Do It All — Plenary Power Has Its Limitations
1. Deficiencies in Executive Action
Congress has "plenary power" over Indian affairs. That over-
worked terms stems from the Constitution vMch, anong other things, provides
that ths Congress has power to "Regulate Ccniterce with Foreign Nations and among
the several States and with Indian Tribes." 94/ A distortion of the meaning of
'■plenary power" has given rise to misconceptions in both "The Nbjority Report"
and "The Dissent." Vfebster tells us that "plenary" means "conplete, absolute,
perfect and unqualified." That full power, however, is liitdted to legislative
action. It is the breakdown in the Executive Branch of the Government that
has contributed to much of the failure in Indian affairs. Had there been
proper Executive conduct, the history of Indian affairs would not have been
so bleak. The institutionalized conflicts of interest within the Office of
the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General of the United States
underlie much of the disastrous consequences that exenplify the conduct of
Indian affairs.
Legislation, passed by Congress, nay be requisite to totally correct
the conflicts of interest in the Interior and Justice Departments. Yet, the
Executive Branch of the Government can, and must, act imtediately to provide
94/ Constitution of the United States, 1787, Art. I, Sec, 8, CI. 3.
487
-59-
protection for the Indians against those conflicts awaiting v*iatever legisla-
tion Congress may decide to adopt.
T^ro glaring exaitples of the methods used to defeat the power of Congress
will suffice to denxinstrate the obdurate actions of an intransigent bureauc-
racy within both the Interior and Justice Departments.
a. Executive Abridgarent of the Winans-Winters Concepts
■niere has been reviewed, with specificity and detail, the
fundamental concepts enunciated, recognized and recif firmed by the Supreme
Court as to both the inherent power of the Indian tribes to reserve and re-
tain to themselves their iinnemorial rights and to administer those rights
vAiich they did not convey to the National Government. 95/
Irrespective of those basic and all inportant concepts enunciated by the
Supreme Court in Winters and Winans , the bureaucracy has steadfastly acted to
denigrate the concepts of those two keystone opinions. As stated above, there
is attached to this Menorandum "An Analysis of Proposed Secretarial Rules Re-
specting 'The Use of Water on Indian Reservations' and the Recommended Rejec-
tion of Them," Main thrust of that analysis pertains to the distortion of
the Act 25 U.S.C. 381, the Powers decision, 96/ and the Hibner case. 97/
In 25 U.S.C. 381, Congress wisely provided that the Secretary of the
Interior would have power, under the Act, to formulate and enforce rules and
95/ See, " The Winters Decision Must Be Read with the Winans Decision If the
MagnitiBe of the Errors in 'The Dissent' are to be Fully Conprehended, "
pg. 37 of this MemDrandum. ~~~ "
96/ See attached "Analysis," pg. 18 et seq .
97/ See attached "Analysis," pg. 21 et seq .
488
-60-
regulations: To make a just and equal distribution of the water "aitong Indians"
residing on thDse reservations. In the process of misconstruing the ejqslicit
language of that and related acts, the bureaucracy did these things: 1) It
purported to act for the Indians. In truth and fact, however, it gave, by
those rules and regulations vAiich are attached, a carte blanche to non-Indians
to seize and utilize Indians rights to the use of water without recourse out-
side of the courts. 2) It violated the Winters rights to the use of water by
awarding parts of those rights to the use of water to non-Indian purchasers of
formerly allotted lands; 3) it suppressed, by the proposed rvles and regulations,
the inherent powers of Indians to exercise self-government and to administer
those rights residing in the tribes as recognized in both Winters and Winans . 98/
Objectives of the rules and regulations, in the final analysis, was in
furtherance of twD cases vAiich are ongoing. They are the Walton case 99/ axd
the Bel Bay case. 100/ In both instances, the rules and regulations would
greatly benefit the non-Indian defendants in those cases to the irreparable
damage of the Indian tribes. In both cases, although the Indians declare their
ownership to the rights to the use of water, the Interior and Justice Depart-
ments assvmne contrary positions without ever having consulted, agreed or in
any vay informed the Indian tribes that the Justice Department WDuld align it-
self against them. Those two cases are representative of the methods adhered to
in the Ejcecutive Branch of the Government vrfiich result in irreparable damage
to the Indians. The rules and regulations, as promulgated and fostered in
98/ See, page 37 of this Maxorandum.
99/ See, attached "Analysis," United States v, Walton, fn. 6, pg. 6.
100/ See, attached "Analysis," United States v. Bel Bay, fn. 6, pg. 9.
489
furtherance of those two cases, are likewise representative of the grave prob-
lem that Congress is confronted with when it is dealing with the obdurate and
intransigent bureaucracies in both Interior and Justice.
Quite obviously, the intentions of Congress, to provide for Indians re-
siding on their reservations by making a just and equal distribution of water
among them, was violated by the misapplication of the law. Equally clear is
the fact ttiat the formidable and favorable aspects of Winans and Winters pro-
viding protection for the Indian people, all in keeping with the concepts
expressed by the Supreme Court, were abridged hy the bureaucracy through the
formulation of the rules and regialations in question. It must never be for-
gotten that suppression of Indian inherent power and authority provides means
and methods of perpetuation of an autocratic bureaucracy that has plagued the
lives of Indians since the advent of the European at the time of "discovery."
Congress, in the exercise of its broad powers, can legislate away the
institutionalized conflicts of interest within the Interior and Justice Depart-
ments, It can do so by the establishment of an independent agency to adminis-
ter Ijxlian affairs. Yet constant vigilence by the Congress and by the Indian
people will be required if the new agency is to carry out the will of Congress
and to preserve and protect the interests of the Indians.
b. Vitiation of the Congressional Will as Enunciated in
the "Self-Determination" Act, 25 U.S.C. 450 Et Seq.
Another exanple of Executive action violating the will of the
Congress and the interests of the Indian nations, tribes and people is the re-
cently enacted "Self-Determination" Act. In ej?>licit terms. Congress has under-
490
-62-
taken to free the Indians frcm the autocratic control of the existing bureauc-
racy. 101/ However, "The Majority Report" aiphasizes that administrative rules
and regulations, as formulated by the bureaucracy, have rendered much of the
Act as intended by Congress to be iitpotent. Whereas Congress has explicitly
directed the furtherance of tribal self-government, the bureaucracy has made
a contrary determination. There is thus, once again, abrogated the will of
Congress and the power of the Indians to administer their own affairs.
These excerpts from "The Majority Report" clearly denonstrate v*iat oc-
curs to the best of plans which Congress can formulate. The Bureaucracy is
determined to continue its rule and domination of Indians irrespective of the
"plenary power" of Congress. With reference to the Act in question, "The
Majority Report," among other things, has this to say:
"III. Findings and Reooitinendations :
Presently,, there is only one program which provides direct
support to the strengthening of tribal government. This
program is provided for in Section 104(a) of the Indian
Self -Determination and Educational Assistance Act, and is
titled the Self -Determination Grants Program.
The administrative regulations of the Self -Determination
Grants Program narrow the scope of Congressional intent
articulated in the Indian Self-Determination and Educa-
tional Assistance Act.
. . . the administrative regulations associated with Self-
Determination Grants Programs specify 'allowable cost*
under the program which serves to limit the allowable
activities undertaken to strengthen tribal governments."
There is thus manifested the ways and means that the Congressional will
and efforts are thwarted. As a matter of legislative intent, it appears to be
an iitperative necessity that the Congress not only declare its intent, but es-
101/ See above, this Nfemorandum, pg. 23 et seq .
491
-63-
tablish an agency that vd.ll, of necessity, perform the vn.ll of ODngress. Simi-
larly, the new agency that should be created nust reflect the vdJLl of the Indian
people, rather than the autocratic departinent to which reference has been made.
2. Immediate Presidential Action Paralleling and Inplgnenting
"The Majority Report" is an Inperative Necessity
As reviewed above, there must be action taken by the Executive
Branch of the Government with the objective of assisting the Indians if the
concepts of "The Majority Report" are to be acconplished. In a word. Congress
can legislate for Indian interests but the Executive Banch can — and does —
abfuscate, procrastinate and deviate with destructive consequences for the
Indians, In the venacular. Congress cannot do it all. Much that has been
done for the American Indian by the Congress is being dissipated by the bur-
eaixrratic veto of Congressional will. Yet, it is manifest that the refusal
of the Executive Branch of the Government — vMch tes been historic — to
support the American Indians has been accotplished at relatively low levels
of the bureaucracy.
It is of extreme inportance, in that regard, to note that this Nation's
fundamental law provides that: "The Executive power shall be vested in a Presi-
dent of the United States." 102/ Moreover, and most inportantly here, the Con-
stitution declares that the President "... shall take care that the Laws be
faithfully executed. ..." 103/
102/ Constitution of the United States, 1787, Article II, Section 1.
103/ Article II, Section 3.
492
-64-
It cannot be urged too strongly that the full Presidential power be in-
voked to assure that in the period required to iitplement "The Majority Report-
that "care" is taken to fulfill this Nation's trust obligations to the Indian
people.
Bespectfully suhnitted.
^.^^^*«SS.~N^^8W
May 1977
493
m
OF
PROPOSED SECRETARIAL H3IES
RESPECTING
"TEE USE OF WATER ON
INDIAN RESEFWATIOJS"
AND IHE
REOOftlENDED REJECTION OF THEM
National CCaigress
of \American Indians
494
TABLE OF CCNTEOTS
Introduction - Sunmarization 1
A. Withdrawal of "Proposed Rules" alone will not Suffice;
Changes within the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division
are also Necessary 3
B. A Vacuum of Executive Authority is Created by the
"Proposed Rules" 3
C. "Proposed Rules" Must Be Considered in the Light of the
Walton and Bel Bay Cases and the History of Indian W&ter
Codes 3
Alignment of the Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division
Against the Western Indian Nations, Tribes and People 4
Deception is the Hallmark of the "Proposed Rules" 4
1. "Proposed Rules" have no Application to Non-Indian
Expanded Water Use upon Former Indian land 4
2. Understanding of the Walton and Bel Bay Cases essoitial
to conprehension of the "Proposed Rules" and the con-
fused Conditions of the Solicitor's Office and Lands
Division in regard to Indian Winters Rights 6
3. History of Water Codes 13
4. Solicitor's Refusal to ^prove Tribal Water Codes 17
a. Seizure of Indian Winters Rights for Non-Indians 18
b. Extent of the Winters Rights to the Use of Water the
Solicitor's Office wDuld force the Tribe to share with
Non-Indians as a Condition to i^proval of the water
Codes 21
c. The "Proposed Rules" are: But a "Demonstration of
Gross Hypocrisy ***" 23
d. Who, under the "Proposed Rules," are the Non- Indian
Persons and Entities Entitled to Share with the
Tribes their Winters Rights? 26
e. Deception in "Proposed Rules" Further Reveals: The
Solicitor's "Proposed Rules" Permits Es^anded Use of
Water by Non-Indians and that Expanded Use of Water
is CXitside the Purview of Those "Proposed Rules" 28
495
f. Violation by the "Proposed Rules," If Mopted, of
(a) Tribal Winters Rights to the Use of Water;
(b) Tribal Priority for Those Rights 28
(1) Confiscation of Tribal Winters Rights ard
Priorities 31
(2) Violation of Tribal Winters Rights by the
Solicitor's "Expanding" Non-Indian Use after
Acquisition of Indian Land 34
(3) Violation of Winters Rights by the Solicitor's
Attenpted ^^lication of State Law within the
Vfestem Reservations 35
(4) Violation of Tribal Winters Rights Espoiosed
by Lands Division in Bel Bay Case 37
Espousal of the Seizure of Tribal Winters
Rights by Lands Division in the Bel Bay
Case 37
Si^^pression of Tribal Power of Self -Determination and Self-
Govemment Constitutes Methods used by the Solicitor and Lands
Division to Violate Tribal Rights 41
A. Solicitor's Arbitrary and Capricious Conduct Violates
Tribal Titles and Powers 41
B. Restrictions Relative to Irrigation Projects Further
Evidences Attack Upon Tribal Powers and Tribal Rights 43
C. i^jpeals Process Further Inpinges en Tribal Rights and
Tribal Authority 44
Trust Violations Owing to the Indian Tribes Prevade all
Aspects of the "Proposed Rules" 46
A. "No Self-Respecting Law Firm *** would allow itself to
occupy the position of the Solicitor and Lands Division
respecting the "Proposed Rules" 46
B. Violation of the Trust Obligation Requires Rejection of
Rules" 47
93-440 O - 78 - 33
496
AN
ANALYSIS
"THE USE OF VMER ON
INDIAN RESEPWATICNS" 1/
AND THE
RECOMMENDED REaECTICN OF THEM 2/
I. INTRODUCnCM — SUMMARIZATION
There was published on March 17, 1977, in the Federal Register, pro-
posed Secretarial rules governing "THE USE OF V2ATER ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS,"
which are referred to throughout this canmentary as the "Proposed Rules." Those
"Proposed Rules" are not the product of the incimbent Secretary of the Inter-
ior or his staff. Moreover, the Kmorable leo M. Krulitz, now Solicitco: of
the Department of the Interior, did not approve the "Proposed Rules." lather,
as will be reviewed, the "Proposed Rules" were sponsored by former Secretary
1/ Vol. 42 Fed. Reg., No. 52, page 14885, 14886 et seq . ; Thursday, March 17,
1977. A copy of these "Proposed Rules" are attached to this memorandum
and made a part of it by reference.
2/ This analysis relates directly to the case entitled: COlville Confed-
erated Tribes v. Walton, et al. , Civil No. 3421 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Northern Divis-
ion, (see page 6, footnote 6).
497
of the Interior, Rogers C.B. Morton. The recently departed Solicitor is
primarily responsible for the "Proposed Rules," as published. That offic-
ial, working in close conjunction with personnel from the Land and Natural
Itesources Division, hereafter referred to as the Lands Division, fontiulated
the concepts and determined the goals which were to be achieved by those
proposed rules and regulations. As will be reviewed and eitphasized, the
"Proposed Rules" are disastrous for the Western Indian nations, tribes and
people.
An overriding factor relative to these "Proposed Rules" is that they
are premature . The Solicitor's Office and Lands Division are seeking to
achieve, by Secretarial fiat, the relief which they now desire to obtain
in the Walton and Bel Bay cases. Those cases are inextricably interrelated
to the "Proposed Rules," all as evidenced by the attached Solicitor's letter
dated September 28, 1976, to the Lands Division.
The "Proposed Rules" should be rejected because they are:
Deceptive , professing to protect the Indian Winters rights
to the use of water; whereas, in truth and fact, they are
Violative of the Winters Doctrine rights to the use of
water, the full equitable title to which resides in the
tribes. Tte "Proposed Rules" result in the seizure of
Winters rights to the use of water for non-Indians.
They, moreover, result in a seizure of Indian priorities
for the benefit of non-Indians by declaring that the
non-Indian purchaser of formerly allotted lands acquires
Winters Doctrine rights and is entitled to the same
priority of the tribes. Those rules are, moreover.
Suppressive of the inherent power of the Indians to man-
age their own internal affairs within their reservations.
Those rules condition Secretarial approval of tritel water
codes upon the agreement by the tribes that they will re-
lingxrLsh Winters Doctrine rights and priorities to non-
Indians.
498
A. Withdrawal of "Proposed Rules" alone will not Suffice; Changes with-
in the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division are also Necessary
Withdrawal of the "Proposed Rules" should ensue because they are [1] decep-
tive, failing on their face to disclose their adverse consequences to the In-
dians; [2] violative of the Indian Winters rights and the priority of those
rights; and [3] suppressive of Indian authority and the dignity of the American
Indian nations, tribes and people. Withdrawal of the "Proposed Rules" will
not alone suffice; there must be changes to correct the conflicts of interest
giving rise to them in the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division. They are
racist in content and character. They are the product of the conflict of
interest in the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division.
B. A Vacuum of Executive Authority is Created by the "Proposed Rules "
The "Proposed Rules," declaring ^Jiat neither the tribes nor the Sec-
retary of the Interior have jurisdiction over non-Indians, creates an
executive vacuum in regard to non-Indians who have greatly expanded their
irrigated acreage after Indian lands have been purchased by non-Indians.
In effect, the objectives of the "Proposed Rules" are to strip fron the
tribes and Secretary, executive authority over irrigated lands developed
by non-Indians after the acquisition of those lands by them. That pos-
ture is legally incorrect and administratively impossible.
C. "Proposed Rules" Must Be Considered in the Light of the Walton
and Bel Bay Cases and the History of Indian Water Codes
To corprehend the "Proposed Rules," which declare that they have no appli-
cation to expanded irrigation development after non-Indian acquisition, and
their adverse inpact upon the Indian Winters rights and tribal authority con-
cept, a separate review is necessary. There is, in tte footnotes and set
forth throughout the ccitinentary, the history of the Walton and Bel Bay
cases and the history of the tribal water codes.
499
II. ALIGNMENT
OF THE
SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
AND THE
lANDS DIVISICN
AGAINST THE
WESTE3?N INDIAN NATIONS,
TRIBES AND PEOPLE
Deception is the Hallirark of the "Proposed Rules "
1. "Proposed Rules" have no application to non-Indian expanded water
use upon former Indian Land .
The "Proposed Rules" are disastrous for the Indian people, all as
observed above. They have no application to irrigated acreage developed by
non- Indians after they have acquired formerly allotted lands. Those "Pro-
posed Rules" are predicated primarily i^xDn Section 7 of the General Allot-
ment Act. That section is codified as 25 U.S.C. 381 and is set forth below. 3/
It will be observed that 25 U.S.C. 381 authorizes the Secretary to issue
rules and regulations for a just and equal distribution of water "aitong the
Indians residing" v;5)on reservations requiring "water" for agricrjlture .
3/ See attached "Proposed Rules," pg. 14885, 14886, Part 260, Sec. 260 et seq.
"IRRIGATED LAND; REGUIATION OF USE OF WATER
In cases v*iere the use of water for irrigation is necessary to render
the lands within any Indian reservation available for agricultural pur-
poses, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe such
rules and regulations as he nay deem necessary to secure a just and
equal distribution thereof among the Indians residing upon any such
reservation; and no other appropriation or grant of water by any ripar-
ian proprietor shall be authorized or permitted to the damage of any
other riparian proprietor."
500
Relative to that sec±ion and the use of water by non-Indians upon ir-
rigated lands developed by the non-Indians subsequent to acquisition of
formerly allotted lands, the Solicitor says this in the attached letter
dated September 28, 1976, and directed to Lands Division:
"This [25 U.S.C. 381] confers no authority ipon the
Secretary to deliver any water to non-Indians." 4/
Later in that letter, in regard to the "Proposed Rules," the Solicitor
makes this statement:
"*** the Departmsnt will approve individual tribal
water codes regulating the use of water reserved
under the Winters Doctrine on the tribe's reserva-
tion so long as the following conditions are met:
(4) The tribe seeks only to regulate the use of
reserved water rights, v^iich includes [1] tribally
owned water rights, [2] rights owned by allottees,
and [3] the 'first corrpDnent' of the rights des-
cribed in Hibner ; ***" 5/
By the reference to the "first conponent" of Hibner , the Solicitor has made
the determination: When a non-Indian acquires formerly allotted lands, he
■•*** v/ill get a Winters priority to the amount of water used vAien the land
was ***" held by an Indian. That statement, as applied to the "Proposed
Rules," is a clear violation of the tribes' claimed full equitable title
to all water rights. Moreover, the "Proposed Rules" exeirpts fron the ap-
plication of them, the non- Indian e>^loiter, who acquires vindeveloped land,
and after acquisition, vastly increases the irrigated acreage, seizing
Indian water without right for that purpose.
4/ See attached Solicitor's letter, September 28, 1976, pg. 6. This letter
is frequently referred to in this conmentary.
5/ Solicitor's letter, pg. 7, para. (4).
501
2. Understanding of the Walton and Bel Bay cases essential to com-
prehension of the "Proposed Rules" and the cx?nfused conditions
of the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division in regard to Indian
Winters rights .
It will be observed that the attached letter from the Solicitor
pursuant to vdiich the "Proposed Rules" were fonnulated relates to United
States V. Walton and United States v. Bel Bay . 6/ Those cases are reviewed
below. However, it is essential briefly to refer to the fact that the case
(commentary continues on pg. 12)
6/ United States v. Walton, Civil No. 3421, [sic]. Eastern District of
Vfeshington; United States v. Bel Bay Conmunity and Water Association,
Civil No. 303-71-C2 , Western District of Washington.
The Solicitor's letter is in error. The case cited is Civil No. 3831.
Civil No. 3421 is the case, Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, et
al. The twD Walton cases — Colville v. Walton and the United States
v. Walton — were consolidated for further proceedings by court order,
dated December 19, 1973.
Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, et al. . Civil No. 3421, in the
United States District Court in and for the Eastern District of Wash-
ington, Northern District.
Sinplistically, that case involved the following factual statement:
No Nane Creek is a small creek vMch rises in the southwestern portion
of the Colville Indian Reservation. It flows its full length through
a deeply insized mountain valley, all within the Reservation and ter-
minates v*ien it enters a beautiful closed body of water known as Omak
Lake.
The lands bordering No Name Creek were allotted to members of the Col-
ville Confederated Tribes. In the 1920' s, the Indian allottees, owning
three (3) adjoining allotments, sold them to non-Indians. Probably be-
cause of its meager flow, the waters were never diverted and used to
irrigate the lands while they were in Indian ownership.
Immediately below those three (3) allotments, v*iich passed into the
hands of non- Indians, there was an allotment occipied by Colville In-
dian people and their water was diverted from No Name Creek for the
purposes of irrigation, donestic, and other uses. Moreover, members
of the Colville Confederated Tribes fished in No Name Creek and other-
wise used it for recreational purposes. Further, the Colville Confed-
erated Tribes own lands at the point of v*iere No Name Creek enters
Otiak Lake and utilized it for tribal purposes.
502
6/ (continued) In the closing years of the 1940' s, the Waltons purchased
~ the three (3) Indian allotments v*iich had gone out of Indian ownership
a quarter of a century earlier. The previous non-Indian owners of those
allotments never diverted and used the waters of No Name Creek, antece-
dent to selling them to the Waltons.
In 1948, the Waltons made a filing of an application with the State
of Washington for the purpose of appropriating the waters of No Name
Creek. That filing was to acquire frctn the State of Washington a
certificate of water right.
During the ensuing years, the Waltons e>5)anded their uses of water
from No Name Creek, both from the surface and ground waters of that
stream.
During the surmer months, the Waltons dried up No Name Creek. By
those acts of the Waltons, the Indian allotees and the Colville Ccn-
federated Tribes were deprived of the waters of No Name Creek.
In Septeirber of 1970, the Colville Confederated Tribes filed in the
Federal Court in Spokane, the case of Colville v. Walton, to vMch ref-
erence is here made. Twd years later, on September 27, 1972, that Court
entered a teirporary injunction, both as to time and quantities of the
water vMch the Waltons could take and divert frcm No Name Creek.
When the Court enjoined the Waltons, the State of Washington inter-
vened in Colville v. Walton. The Confederated Tribes then petitioned
the Solicitor's Office to request the intervention in Colville v.
Walton by the United States on behalf of the Tribes. On February 2,
1973, the Solicitor requested the intervention by the Lands Division
in Colville v. Walton. Contrary to the position of the Tribes, vMch
were as against Walton claiming ownership of the rights to the use of
water and the power to administer those rights to the use of water,
the Solicitor's Office said this to the Lands Division: "Please al-
lege that the Secretary of the Interior has the exclusive jurisdic-
tion to control and administer the allocation of water on tribal,
alloted and formerly allotted lands [the Waltons] of the Colville
Reservation pursuant to the authority of 25 U.S.C. 381." It is essen-
tial here to refer to the fact that the rules to vrtuch these cortments
are directed are predicated ipon, and issued pursx^nt to 25 U.S.C.
381, the Act last cited. As also reviewed above, the Solicitor has
now coitpletely reversed the quoted positions.
Rather than intervening on behalf of the Colville Confederated Tribes,
tJie Lands Division initiated, on its own volition, an entirely inde-
pendent case — United States v. Walton. This is the reason for re-
fusing to intervene in Colville v. Walton as stated in the Lands Di-
vision's letter dated March 3, 1973, to the U.S. Attorney in Spokane,
Washington: "By letter dated February 2, 1973 *** Interior requested
503
6/ (continued)we intervene in [Colville v. Walton] *** Vfe have decided,
however, not to intervene because the conplaint filed on behalf of
the Tribes does not, in our opinion,
raise the issue vfcLch must be addressed to obtain a judic-
ial determination in this controversy, i.e. , the authority
of the Secretary of the Interior to determine allocation of
water on Indian Lands."
Earlier in that comntiunication frxDm the Lands Division to the U.S.
Attorney in Spokane, it had adopted virtually identically the same
langioage as was quoted above frc«n the February 2, 1973, letter from
the Solicitor to the Lands Division. In other words, both the Sol-
icitor's Office and the Lands Division insist that 25 U.S.C. 381
sought to confer upon the Secretary of the Interior, "the exclusive
jurisdiction to control and administer the allocation of water on
tribal, allotted and formerly allotted lands of the Colville Reserva-
tion. ***"
There was filed on March 15, 1973, by the Lands Division, United States
Attorney in Spokane, the conplaint in U.S. v. Walton. The Lands Divis-
ion prayed that the Waltons be "enjoined f ran diverting water *** in
any amount [sic] of excess of that authorized by the Secretary of the
Interior." Incongruously, the Secretary of the Interior, then and now,
had never authorized Waltons, nor anyone else, to divert from ^kD Name
Creek, or any other stream for that matter, any quantity of water.
Quite clearly, the Lands Division was acting contrary to the danands
of the Colville Confederated Tribes in that the Tribe had insisted
that: (1) Walton had no right to the use of water in No Name Creek ;
and (2) that Walton could take water only i:pon the approval of the
Tribe. It is essential to observe, moreover, as will be fully re-
viewed, that the Lands Division has repeatedly delayed — and contin-
ues to delay — the trial of the Waltons' case on the merits. It is
also inportant to observe that the case of U.S. v. Walton, to which
reference will iimediately be made, has been consolidated with the
Colville V. Walton case for the purpose of trial.
Ifriited States v. Walton, et al. , and the State of Vfashington , in the
United States District Court for tte Eastern District of Washington,
Northern Division Civil No. 3831.
Both the Solicitor's Office and later the Lands Division, in its letter
of March 6, 1973, asserted in error that 25 U.S.C. 381 — conferred
"exclusive jurisdiction" upon the Secretary of the Interior to control,
administer and allocate the water resources on the Colville Indian
Reservation.
504
-9-
6/ (continued) As reviewed in the mentioned letter of ^ferch 6, 1973, to
~ the United States Attorney in Spokane, Washington, directing the initi-
ation of United States v. Walton, et al. , having alluded to the request
that it intervene in Colville v. Walton, the Lands Division es^lains
the reason for the rejection for the request: "We have decided not
to intervene," because the case of Colville v. Walton does not raise
the issue of "*** the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to
determine the allocation of water on Indian land."
Moreover, the Lands Division firmly asserted "exclusive jurisdiction"
resided in the Secretary of the Interior to control, administer and
allocate all of the water on the Colville Indian Reservation: "This
allegation is the same as that itade in the case entitled. United States
V. Bel Bay Coitmunity, et al.. Civil No. 303-71-C2, U.S.D.C, Western
District of Washington.
By reason of the fact that the Lands Division and the Solicitor's Office
have correlated the cases of United States v. Walton and the case of
United States v. Bel Bay Community, it is essential that a conprehensive
analysis be nade of that case.
As observed above, the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division have denied
the Secretary has power over non-Indian land.
United States v. Bel Bay Community *** State of Washington , Civil No.
303-71-C2 in the United States District Court, Western District of
Washington, at Seattle.
On NOvatiber 23, 1971 — subsequent to the initiation of the case of
Colville V. Walton; the Lands Division initiated the above entitled
proceedings, vMch hereafter will be referred to as the Bel Bay case.
As in the Walton cases, these and other issues are presented:
1. The alleged "exclusive jurisdiction" of the Secretary of the Inter-
ior, xjnder 25 U.S.C. 381, to administer the rights to the use of
water on Indian reservations — as reviewed above, the Solicitor's
Office has not reprised itself;
2. the issue of whether non-Indians acquire rights to the use of water
when title to forrrerly allotted lands passed to them;
3. the natiare and extent of the rights, if any, of non-Indian who ac-
quire formerly allotted lands; and
4. the jurisdiction of states over rights to the use of water within
Indian reservations.
505
6/ (cx»ntinued) The salient facts of the Bel Bay case are these:
Situated on Puget Sound, a substantial portion of the Lunmi Indian Res-
ervation is surrounded by salt water. Fonterly allotted Lxmtd Indian
land was purchased by the Bel Bay Conmunity and those lands were sub-
divided for residential purposes. That community applied to the State
of Washington for a permit to drill a well and to punp ground water
for the purposes for which the Bel Bay Comiunity was organized. On
Deceinber 17, 1970, the State of Washington issued the permit. Anong
other things, the State asserted that it had jurisdiction over the
"sxxcplus" waters within the Lummi Indian Reservation; that there were
surplus waters within that reservation; and the permit to the Bel Bay
Community extended to that surplus.
An investigation disclosed that the proposed well would be at a depth
of 40 feet below the level of the surrounding salt water in Puget Sound.
The investigation further disclosed that by the punping at Bel Bay to
the extent that it was requested in the permit would result in a re-
duction in the ground water table to a point v*>ere there would be salt
water intrusion into the fresh water table, thereby contaminating the
fresh water underlying the Lummi Indian Reservation causing the Lurmd
Tribe irreparable damage.
In reporting those facts, and others, the Regional Solicitor, Robert
E. Ratcliffe, in a memorandum dated June 7, 1971, said, among other
things, that: "The Secretary of the Interior has 'exclusive jurisdic-
tion to administer all water, surface and ground, within the Indian
reservation'; that if the state had jurisdiction to administer 'sur-
plus water' on the Indian reservation, the existence and extent of •
that surplxis would be a question solely for the United States to de-
cide; and that the permit issued by the state was an arbitrary and
a capricious act."
On September 14, 1971, the Solicitor's Office referred the Bel Bay
case to the Lands Division. The case was catmenced by the United
States Attorney in the Federal District Court in Seattle.
Lunini Indian Tribe, Intervenor in Bel Bay Case
The Lummi Indian Tribe intervened in the Bel Bay case. In its motion
dated April 21, 1972, the Lunmi Indian Tribe asserted, among other
things, that the Lands Division's case, as initiated against the Bel
Bay Conmunity, and the statements made by the Lands Division's attor-
neys, revealed that the "interests and position *** differs materially
and prejudically frcm the interest of the Lummi Indian Tribe."
It is urged that the case as initiated by the Lands Division involves
the authority of the State of Washington, the Secretary of the Inter-
ior and the Lunmi Indian Tribe. The Lumd Tribe then asserts that the
506
-11-
6/ (continued) adjucation of those issues — as asserted by the lands
Division and the State of Washington "***will permanently irtpair ***
the Indian rights to the use of water "both as owner of the natxaral
resources and as a sovereign governmental body to regulate that nat-
ural resource." (See motion, ;^ril 21, 1972, pages 2-3, lines 20-23;
1-3.) It is likewise averred in the Lumni motion to intervene that
contrary to the Tribe's interest, the Lands Division had acknowledged
that the Bel Bay Community had rights to the use of water within the
Lunmi Indian Reservation. Moreover, the Lurtmis assert that the only
objection raised to the claim of water by the non- Indian Bel Bay Ccm-
munity by the Lands Division vould be to limit the Bel Bay's rights
to a stated amount."
The motion avers, moreover, that contrary to the interest of the Luimis,
the Lands Division has suggested that the State of Washington might
have jurisdiction over "surplus water," vAiich the Lummis denied. In
the motion, it is also stated, "Finally, it appears that the Justice
Department is asserting the primary interest of tte Secretary of the
Interior in his functions with respect to the allocation of water. The
Justice Department will not assert as fqrcibly plaintiff/intervenors
the right, powers and authority of the Limmi Indian Tribe to manage and
regulate its own resources as a sovereign governing body." (Motion,
April 21, 1972, pg. 4)
On May 12, 1972, the Federal Court granted the Lummi motion to inter-
vene in the Bel Bay case.
Adversary Status of the Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division
against the Colville and Lummi Tribes
Anamolous though it may be, both the Liitmi Indian Tribe and the Col-
ville Confederated Tribes have been forced to protect themselves
against the Lands Division and the Solicitor's Office. The interven-
tion of the Lumni Tribe in the Bel Bay case to protect itself against
the Lands Division has been reviewed. It is equally iitportant that
the Colville Confederated Tribes have filed a motion with the court,
asking the court to align the Lands Division as an adversary to the
Colville Confederated Tribes in the Walton cases.
That alignment in the Walton and Bel Bay cases conports fully with
the positions vdiich it is believed the tribes should take in regard
to the "Proposed Rules."
507
-12-
of United States v. Vfelton was initiated on the basis that the Secretary,
linder 25 U.S.C. 381, had "exclusive jurisdiction" over the water resources
on the Colville Indian Reservation. Lands Division, in its letter of
March 6, 1973, states the objective of this case is "*** to obtain a jud-
icial determination in this controversy, i.e. , the authority of the Secre-
tary of the Interior to determine the allocation of water on Indian Lands."
In the attached Solicitor's letter, there is a ccrplete reversal of the
position taken in the case of United States v. Vfalton . The Solicitor's
Office does not now seek, in the "Proposed Rules," to control the Waltons'
water use as is oontatplated in United States v. Walton . Reasons for the
reversal: The Solicitor now states that 25 U.S.C. 381 does not confer
exclusive jurisdiction on the Secretary to control water resources on the
Colville Indian Reservation. On page six (6) of the attached Solicitor's
letter, it is stated:
25 U.S.C. 381 "*** confers no authority upon the Secretary
to deliver any water to non-Indians."
That corplete reversal by the Solicitor and the impact on the Walton and
Bel Bay cases is reviewed below. Corrective measures within the Department
of the Interior and the Lands Division to protect the all irtportant tribal
Winters Doctrine rights and the tribal authority to administer those rights
is an irrperative necessity.
Because of the drastic reversal, as set forth above, in the "Proposed
Rules," frcm the previous positions taken by the Solicitor and Lands Divis-
ion, it may be of assistance briefly to review the activities of the Indian
508
people to formulate their own rules ard regulations vAiich now, pursuant to
the "Proposed Rules," are subject to harsh limitations irrposed upon the tribes
by those "Proposed Rules."
3. History of water codes
For ten (10) years, the Western Indians have acted to (a) protect,
preserve, conserve, utilize and exercise their invaluable Winters Doctrine
rights to the use of water; 7/ (b) to exercise their inherent powers of self-
govemnent in the administration, allocation, control and management of those
rights in the generally short, frequently meager supplies of water on their
arid and semi-arid Western reservations.
7/ The Winters Doctrine - Lifeline for the Western Indians ; Winters Doctrine
~ rights to the use of water are the most valuable assets of the Annerican
Indians, particiiLarly Indian people residing in the arid and semi-arid
West. To adopt the language of the Suprene Court in the famous 1908
decision, Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), in regard to
Montana's Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, "The lands were arid and with-
out irrigation were practically valueless" (I.D. 207 U.S. 564, 576,
1908) . When, in 1963, the Winters Doctrine was reiterated and reaffirmed
by the Supreme Court, these terms were used: "Most of the land in these
reservations is and always has been arid. If the water necessary to
sustain life is to be had, it must corns from the Colorado River or its
tributaries " Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 598 (1963).
Inportant here is the rational of the Winters Doctrine as expressed in
the last cited decision, for it is the Secretary of the Interior whose
"Proposed Rules," if adapted, would abridge the Winters rights of the
Indians with the attendant irreparable damage to the Western Indian
nations, tribes and people. That rationale is sunxrarized in these words
by the Supreme Court: "It is iirpossible to believe that when the Con-
gress created the great Colorado River Indian Reservation, and when the
Executive Department of the Nation created the other reservations, they
were unaware that most of the lands were of the desert kind — hot, scor-
ching sands — and that water from the river would be essential to the
life of the Indian people *** and the crops they raise." (373 U.S.
546, 598-599, 1963).
509
-14-
During that ten (10) year period, the Western Indians have acted to adopt
"W&ter Codes" designed to achieve the highest and best use of their water re-
sources. They have at all tines proceeded upon the concept that full equit-
able title to the Winters Doctrine rights to the use of water resided in the
tribes. They have likewise proceeded on the basis that tte governing body of
the tribes, working in conjunction with appropriate agencies of the Department
of Interior and the Departirent of Justice, could regulate the use of water,
both by Indians and by non- Indians, on their respective reservations.
In the year 1967, the Vfestem tribes and those working with then under-
took concerted efforts to develop "Water Codes" or ordinances to achieve the
ends so essential to the conservation and utilization of the water resources.
Briefly chronicled below are some of those activities relating the tribal
"Water Codes" and the results of them. 8/ (carmsntary continues on pg. 17)
7/ (continued) Vital to the Indians is the additional fact that the Winters
Doctrine reserved rights to the use of water in the streams which arise
upon, border upon, traverse and underlie their arid and semi-arid —
again to use the language of the Supreme Court: "*** suffice 'to satis-
fy the future as well as the present needs of the Indian Reservations . ' "
373 U.S. 546, 600 (1963).
8/ A. The Warm Springs "Code" : In 1967, the Warm Springs Indian Tribe in
the State of Oregon undertook and conpleted a corrprehensive water re-
sources inventory. That Warm Springs' code defined the water resources,
declared the amount of water available for a variety of purposes, and
airong other things, spelled out the water requirements. The Warm Springs'
code has been successful. I was advised on March 21, 1977, by members
of the Warm Springs' tribal council that there is a need of updating
and perhaps implementing the code based upon current conditions.
B. Yakina's prohibition against purrping ground water and drilling wells
without permits from the Yakima Tribal Council : In 1967, the Yakima
Nation deiranded that action be taken to protect itself and its tribal
members against the violation by non- Indians of their Winters rights to
510
8/ (continued) the use of water within the reservation. Powerful non-
~ Indian agri-business corporations were punping large irrigation wells.
The effect of that puirping had dried up, or greatly lowered, the ground
water table causing severe darrage to individual Indians on the reserva-
tion, which after that date, prohibited the "*** withdrawal of ground
water in the Yakima Indian Reservation," and the drilling of wells or
other works for the withdrawal of ground water "unless an application
to appropriate such waters has been made to the Yakima tritel council
and a permit for construction or withdrawal has been granted." (Yak-
ina Indian Nation Resolution 7-5-70, July 10, 1969) Concurrent with
that resolution, the initial preparation of the Yakima water code was
undertaken. In 1971, there was transmitted to the Yakima tribal coun-
cil by the Regional Solicitor in Portland, Oregon, a draft of proposed
regxxLations "By the Secretary of Water Use On Indian Reservations."
(See Memo dated April 16, 1971, from Assistant Regional Solicitor to
the Superintendent of the Yakima Indian Reservation, Bureau of Indian
Affairs) . Those proposed regulations were without regard to the de-
sires of the Yakimas to administer their own rights to the use of
water. Moreover, those rules and regulations were rudimentary in form
and fell far short of being adequate to neet the tribal needs or those
of the tribal members.
Recently, the Yakima tribal council has prepared a draft of a Yakima
water code. That code is now under active review. It is very much
at odds with the "Proposed Rules" that vere published by the Secre-
tary of Interior, particularly in regard to the powers and authority
of the tribe to administer its own rights to the use of water.
C. 1973 - ffeeting Held in Spokane, Washington, to Formulate Indian
Policy Relative to Water Codes ; Under pressure frcm Indian leader-
ship, in a letter dated October 5, 1973, Roy H. Sanpsel, then Special
Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, wrote to the Chairman of
the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. He proposed a iteeting in
Spokane, Washington, to be held on October 24th and 25th. He stated
that the meeting would be held with members of the Solicitor's Office
from Washington and from members of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
That meeting was duly convened. The chasm viiich exists between the
Solicitor's Office and the tribes became apparent from the moment that
the meeting was opened. There, the Affiliated Tribes and their res-
pective membership demanded protection of their Winters rights and
their authority to develop water codes.
A resolution was adopted at that meeting providing, among other
things, as follows:
511
(continued) "Statment of Principles Covering Water Right Regulations":
The regxiLations of the rights to the use of vater on the Indian reser-
vations: (1) must proceed on a tribe-by-tribe basis because of the
variety of circumstances and differences among the tribes; (2) there
must be recognition that the tribe is the owner of the full equitable
title to the rights of the use of water, and the interest of the
United States is limited only to that of trustee for the sole and ex-
clusive benefit of the Indian tribes; (3) the Secretary of the Inter-
ior, as the principle agent of the United States tnastee, recognizes
the Indian sovereign power of self-government by the tribes, including
the power to regulate the use of water by Indians and non-Indians on
the reservation.
D. Colville Water Code : In accordance with the concept of the meet-
ing of October 24th and 25th, 1973, as convened by the Special Assis-
tant to the Secretary, there was great activity anong the Indian
tribes in attenpting to formulate their own water codes. On May 6,
1974, the most coitprehensive set of rules and regulations relative to
the control and use of water of any reservation was adopted by the
Colville Confederated Tribes. Throughout, that code will be referred
to as the "Colville Water Code." There the governing body of the
Colville Confederated Tribes claimed full equitable title to the rights
of the use of water on the Colville Indian Reservation and the right
to administer those waters on Indian and non-Indian land alike.
There has been an adaitant refusal of the Solicitor's Office to approve
that Colville water code. Nevertheless, the Colville Business Coun-
cil is now, and has been, issuing "water permits" piarsuant to the "Col- '
ville Water Code" and otherwise to iirplement their claim to title to
the rights to the use of water within the Colville Indian Reservation
and to exercise tribal sovereignty in the administration of those
rights. (Resolution No. 1974-334, dated May 6, 1974, Colville Business
Council, "Colville Water Code.")
E. Lunmi Water Code : The governing body of the LUmmi Indian Tribe,
adhering to the concepts advanced in the October 24th and 25, 1973,
meeting, referred to above, adopted its "water code" by the enactment
of an appropriate ordinance. Mhering to the 1973 concepts, the Isamd.
Tribe claims full equitable title to all of the rights to the use of
water on its reservation and the tribe's inherent power to administer
those rights to the use of water on Indian and non-Indian land. (Or-
dinance No. L-41, dated October 7, 1974, Lummi Business Council.)
93-440 O - 78 - 34
512
-17-
4. Solicitor's Refusal to ;^prove Tribal Water Codes
The Colville Confederated Tribes, upon the adoption of their water
code, sutmitted it to the Solicitor's Office for approval. Conferences were
held aitong the Colville representatives and the Solicitor's Office. There
was an adamant refusal on the part of the Solicitor's Office to approve
that water code.
It is now apparent, as will be reviewed, that litigation was in prog-
ress in which both the Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division were dili-
gently taking positions diaitetrically opposed to that of the Colville Con-
federated Tribes, the Luimd Tribe and other tribes.
In 1974, the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes, occupying the Ft. Hall Indian
Reservation, State of Idaho, joined the Colville Confederated Tribes, the
Lummis and others, seeking to have approval of their newly adopted "water
code."
Like other Western tribes, the Ft. Hall Tribes have suffered greatly
fran federal and non- Indian violation of their Winters rights to the use
of water. Rejection of the Ft. Hall water code by the Ccnmissioner of
Indian Affairs was directed to them by the Secretary of the Interior, Rogers
C.B. Morton. 9/ It will be observed that the IVtorton memorandum presages
9/ On January 15 , 1975, Secretary Morton, by a memorandum dated Janu-
~ ary 15, 1975, made the following statement and directive to the then
Commissioner of Indian Affairs: "SUBJECT: Tribal Water Codes
As you know, the Department is currently considering regulations pro-
viding for the adoption of tribal codes to allocate the use of water
on Indian reservations is presently in litigation. I am informed,
however, that sacm tribes nay be considering the enactrtent of water
use codes of their own. This could lead to confusion and a series of
separate legal challenges viiich might lead to undesirable results.
These may be avoided if our regulations could first be adopted.
513
-18-
the "Proposed Rules" and the objectives sought to be achieved through those
rules / if adopted.
a. Seizure of Indian Winters rights for non-Indians
The Solicitor's "Proposed Rules" contain repeated references to
"persons and entities entitled to use reserved water rights; ***" Inquiry is
resented as to who are the persons and entities. The attached Solicitor's
letter is revealing, for it states: "There are two basic questions"
1. Do Indian allottees and non-Indian successors in
interest to Indian allottees hold any portion of
the Winters Doctrine reserved rights to the use
of water?
2. What is the respective extent of the authority of
the Secretary, the state and the tribes to regu-
late the use of water on Indian reservations?"
In answer to question one — Do Indian acquire Winters rights to the use
of water? — the Solicitor says the following, based upon United States v.
Powers:
9/ (continued) I ask, therefore, that you instruct all agency superinten-
dents and area directors to disapprove any tribal ordinance, resolution,
code, or other enactment vdiich purports to the use of water on Indian
reservations and which by the terms of the tribal government document
is subject to such approval or review in order to become or to remain
effective, pending ultirrate determination of this matter.
(sgd) Rogers C.B. MDrton
That memo from former Secretary MDrton contains the concepts v^ich are
so violative of Indian rights. It will be observed that the water codes
are to be for the purpose of governing "reserved" water on Indian reser-
vations. Until the distorted concepts of the Solicitor and Lands Divis-
ion are conprehended, all as will be reviewed, the meaning of C.B. Morton's
memo of January 15, 1975, was cryptic. It is no longer; for it is evident
that as directed by C.B. Morton, the "Proposed Rules" achieve the desired
end v#iich he espoused and which were issued on March 17, 1977.
514
"Vfe believe that the Indian allottees and their non-
Indian successors in interest do hold scroe reserved
rights to the use of water." 10/
Thus, it is apparent that there is no intention under these "Proposed Rules"
to protect "in perpetuity all rights to the use of water reserved for the
benefit of the Indians." 11/ Father, it is irtmediately apparent that the
Solicitor is willing to bargain away the Indian rights, and has used equiv-
ocal terms to achieve that end.
It is pertinent here to review the Solicitor's letter, which is attached,
in an effort to understand the opinion so damaging to the Indians that a non-
Indian purchaser acquires "some" of the Winters Doctrine rights to the use
of water. That conclusion was in error predicated \:pon a reading of the
case. United States v. Powers . 12/ It must be conprehended that Lands Divis-
ion initiated the Powers case in 1934. In that case, Powers, a non-Indian,
was named a defendant. It is equally important to observe that the Lands
Division, in the Powers case, denied that the Crow Indians, upon viiose res-
ervation the case arose, held Winters Doctrine rights to the use of water.
Rather, the contention was made that the United States of America acting
throu^ the Secretary owned those rights to the use of water.
The trial court rejected 13/ the contention of the Lands Division, de-
claring that the Indians were the owners of the Winters rights and not the
United States. From an adverse naling by the lower court, an appeal was
taken to the Court of /^peals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit
10/ Solicitor's letter, pg. 5.
11/ See attached "Proposed Rules," pg. 14885, "Purposes" (a) ; 14886, Part 260,
sec. 260.2(a).
12/ U.S. V. Po;«rs, 305 U.S. 527 (1939) .
13/ U.S. V. Powers, 16 Fed. 155 CU.S.D.C. MDntana, 1934).
515
-20-
sustained the position of the trial court that it was the Crow Indians vAxj
owned the Winters rights and not the United States. The appellate court,
however, reversed the lower court and directed the dismissal of the case.
It did so because the trial court attempted to adjudicate rights to the use
of water, v*ien that trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the want of in-
dispensable parties vAio had interests in the stream but vto were not before
the court. 14/ From that ruling of the Coxirt of Appeals of the Ninth Cir-
cuit, the Lands Division presented the case for review before the Suprane
Court. That Court made short shrift of the matter. It made this suc-
cinct ruling:
"The decree of the Court of Appeals dismissing the bill
[in the Powers case] must be affirmed." 15/
Thus it is that the Solicitor's Office, in the attached letter to the
Lands Division, declares that the Western Indian tribes lose "some" of their
Winters rights to the use of water predicated upon a case that was dismissed.
To achieve the end, the Solicitor ignored the fact that nothing was deter-
mined and nothing decided in Fewer s . It is extronely iitportant to observe
that the Solicitor's Office made no mention of the fact that the case was
dismissed and that no decision was made other than the vant of jurisdiction.
What does emerge from the erroneous reliance upon the Powers case is an ag-
gressive advocacy adopted by the Solicitor against the Indian tribes, all
as reflected in the "Proposed Rules."
14/ U.S. V. Powers, 94 F.2d. 783 (CA 9, 1939).
15/ U.S. V. Powers, 305 U.S. 527, 528 (1939).
516
-21-
There has been reviewed the itethods adopted by the Solicitor's Office
in declaring that the tribes must share their Winters rights to the use of
water with non-Indians, as a condition to having the tribal code approved.
It will now be necessary to turn to the second question as to the extent
of the rights to tie use of water, that the tribes will lose if they ac-
cept the "Proposed Rules."
b. Extent of the Winters Rights to the Use of Water the Sol-
icitor' s Office would force the Tribes to Share with Non-
Indians as a Condition to Approval of the Water Codes
Having declared that the tribes must share "some" of their Win-
ters Doctrine rights with non- Indians, the Solicitor undertook to determine
how much is "sone." It looked to the 1928 case of United States v. HJtoer ,
decided by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Idaho. 16/
As it failed to tell the crucial facts as to the Powers case vMch was
dismissed, all as reviewed above, the Solicitor's Office, in citing the
Hibner case, does not comment \:pon the most pertinent feature of the HJhner
case. That most pertinent fact is this: The formerly allotted lands there
involved were outside of any Indian Reservation. 17/
Another extremely inportant factor not mentioned by the Solicitor's
Office in citing HJhaier is the "Agreenent" forced upon the Ft. Hall Indians
viiich were involved in the Hibner case. Under the agreement between Ft.
Hall Indian Tribes and the United States, the Ft. Hall Indians "do hereby
cede, grant, and relinquish to the United States all right, title, and
16/ 27 F.2d. (U.S.D.C. Ida., E.D., 1928).
17/ Solicitor's letter, pg. 4.
517
-22-
interest ***" to the lands which were ceded and v>*iich included the allotments
in the HJbner case. 18/ It is also provided that the Ft. Hall lands, vMch
were "ceded, granted and relinquished "*** shall remain part of the public
domain. Those lands vere no longer "reserved lands," they were part of the
public domain, title to vdiich was in the United States. 19/ One of the nost
crucial provisions of the "Agreenent" which existed in Hibner , is as
follows: "Where any Indians have taken lands and made homes on the res-
ervation and are now occupying and cultivating the same, under the sixth
section of the Fort Bridger treaty hereinbefore referred to, they shall not
be removed therefrcm without their consent, and they may receive allotments
on the land they now occupy; ***" 20/
Another unique provision, in regard to Hibner , is this quotation from
the above mentioned 1898 agreement:
"The water from streams on that portion of the reser-
vation now sold which is necessary for irrigating on
land actually cultivated and in use shall be reserved 4)
for the Indians now using the same, so long as said
Indians remain v*iere they now live." 21/
As the court in Hibner recognized, it was confronted with an unusual
set of circumstances. More importantly, however, in regard to forcing the
18/ Vol. 1, Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties, Kappler, 2nd ed. , pg 704,
Act of June 6, 1900, "An Act to ratify an agreenent of the Indians
of the Ft Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho, and making appropriations
to carry the same into effect," Article 1.
19/ Id., Article IV.
20/ Id., Article III, pg. 706.
21/ Id., Article VIII, pg. 706.
518
-23-
tribes to share their rights to the use of water, is this fact: The tribes
had, by the arrangement of 1898, ceded, granted and relinquished all of their
claims. In the Walton and Bel Bay cases, the tribes occvjpy their reservations
and in connection with those reservations, are claiming all rights to the
use of water. It is abundantly nanifest that the Solicitor's attenpt to
apply Hibner to those facts is grossly in error. Yet, the Solicitor declares,
on page 5, that the non-Indian purchaser "would get a Winters priority to the
anount of water used v*ien the land was in trust." Full inport of both the
Powers and Hibner cases, as they relate to the "Proposed Rules," will be set
forth.
c. The "Proposed Rules" are; But a "Dannonstration of Gross
Hypocrisy ***"
When there was fully chronicled the attertpts to justi:fy, by the
Secretary, an effort to give away 75% of the Yakimas' rights to the use of
water in Ahtanum Creek, the late Judge Pope described that reprehensible
conduct of the high official as being representative of "The numsroias sanc-
timonious ej^ressions to be found in the acts of Congress, the statement of
public officials, and the opinions of courts respecting 'the generous and
protective spirit viiich the United States properly feels toward its Indian
wards,' *** and the 'high standards in controlling Indian affairs' *** are
but demonstrations of a gross national hypocrisy." 22/
22/ United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation District et al., 236 F.2d, 321,
327-328, (CA. 9, 1956), cert , denied 352 U.S. 998 (1956); 330 F. 2d.
897 (1965); 338 F.2d. 307 (1965); cert, denied 381, 924 (1965).
519
-24-
Those precise statements made in regard to the efforts of the Secretary
to support the attenpted give away of the Yakima rights to the use of water
are equally as applicable to the "Proposed Rules" which the Solicitor seeks to
justify as the fulfillment of the trust obligation. In that regard, ref-
erence is irade to the fact that on two occasions, the "Proposed Rules" de-
clare that there "purposes are" to fulfill the Department's trust responsi-
bility "*** to provide a nethod to preserve and protect in perpetuity all
rights to the use of water reserved for the benefit of the Indians." 23/
Reference is also made to the definition of "reserved rights" which
the "Proposed Rules" state have this meaning: "*** those rights to the use
of water recognized as reserved in accordance with the principles enunciated
in Winters v. United States *** and subsequent cases, vAiich rights have
either an in memDrial priority or a priority date as of the establishment
of the reservation." 24/ It has been reviewed above, in regard to the
Winters Doctrine rights of the Indians that they are sufficient to meet the *
present and the future water requirements for the Indian reservations. In
the "Proposed Rules," it is evident that tlie objective of the "Rules" are
to seize and take from the Indians, rather than to protect and preserve in
perpetuity the invaluable Winter rights to the use of water. That invasion
of the Indian Winters rights to the use of water is e^licit when consider-
ation is given to the full inport of the "Proposed Rules," as drafted.
23/ See attached "Proposed Rules," pg. 14885 "Indian Reservations' Use of
of Water." Pg. 14886, Part 260, sec. 260.2, "Purposes" (a) .
24/ Attached "Proposed Rules," Part 260, sec. 260.1 "Definitions" (b) .
520
-25-
Under ths heading of "Purposes," it is declared that the Secretary of
the Interior is to delegate his powers under 25 U.S.C. 381 to the Indian
tribes. It is itost doubtful that the Secretary has that authority. However,
that is a separate issue to those being now considered. In connection vd.th
that delegation, it is stated in the "Proposed Rules," that they are:
"(c) To provide for the delegation to Indian tribes of
the Secretary's authority to prescribe rules and regiila-
tions distributing water on Indian- reservations to per-
sons and entities entitled to use reserved rights; ***" 25/
That qxxDted proviso frctn the "Proposed Rules," underscores the Solicitor's
insistence — albeit in error — that the Indian tribes, pursuant to their
water codes, share tteir Winters rights with the non-Indians. Reference
in that connection is itade to the "Proposed Rules," under the heading
"i^proval of Tribal Water Codes." That approval is conditioned upon the
tribes' adopting water codes viiich will "*** allocate and regulate the use
of reserved water rights *** for a beneficial use by any person or entity,
including non-Indian persons and entities, that may be entitled to exer-
cise such reserved water rights." 26/
To guarantee the tribes will be forced by the Secretarial "Proposed
Rules" to share their Winters rights with non-Indians, those "Rules"
declare :
25/ "Proposed Rules," Part 260, sec. 260.2, "Purposes" (c) .
26/ "Proposed Rules," Part 260, sec. 260.3(a), under the heading of
"Approval of Tribal Water Codes."
521
-26-
1. "(b) The Secretary shall approve the code if it sat-
isfies the following requirements: *** (1) (ii) all
procedures shall permit any person who claims a right
to the beneficial use of reserved waters to present
his claim by application to the tribe with any per-
tinent evidence in support thereof." 27/
In light of that proviso, it is necessary to turn to the Solicitor's let-
ter and to the proceedings of Lands Division in the Walton and Bel Bay cases
to asertain and determine the impact of allowing non-Indian persons and en-
tities, under the "Proposed Rules," to be awarded Winters Doctrine reserved
rights to the use of water predicated vipon Hibner .
d. Who, under the "Proposed Rules," are the Non-Indian Persons
and Entities Entitled to Share with the Tribes Their Winters
Rights ?
In support of its untenable position, the Solicitor quotes ex-
tensively from Hibner . The first quote, 28/ states that a non-Indian pur-
chaser of Indian land and water "should be awarded *** the same water right
with equal priority as those of the Indians." That statement may be correct "
relative to Hibner in regard to isolated Indian lands outside of the reser-
vation. It is incorrect where it conflicts with title claims within a res-
ervation as in the Walton and Bel Bay cases. The Solicitor's conclusion
is predicated upon issues now being litigated in those cases, and for that
reason, is clearly prenature.
In the next qixjtation, the Solicitor selects this langxjage from Hibner ;
27/ "Proposed Rules," Part 260, sec. 260.3(b) (1) (ii) .
28/ Solicitor's letter, pg. 4.
522
"*** the vMteman, as soon as he becomes the owner of Indian
lands, is subject to those general niles of law governing
the appropriation of the public waters of the state ***" 29/
Quite clearly, predicated upon the Organic Acts of the states and decis-
ion, the Solicitor is in error. In both the States of Idaho, where the
Hitner case arose, and Washington, where the Walton and fiel Bay cases are
on-going, the state law has no application within Indian reservations,
vAiich are es^licitly exernpt from state law.
Proceeding i;5X)n the language quoted from Hihner , the Solicitor makes
this request to the Lands Division:
"We ask you to take the position that the scope of the re-
served right which passes to allottees and successors in
interest pursuant to Powers is that set forth in Hihner ,
except that we ask you to argue that the non- Indians' re-
served rights should be limited to the water actually used
by the Indian predecessor." 30/
Reference is made back to the earlier portion of these comments in which
the Solicitor is quoted as having declared, "that the tribes would have the
authority to regulate *** the 'first coitponent' of the rights described in
Hihner ." 31/ The "first ccnponent," in other words, as stated by the Sol-
icitor, is the amount of water that the Indian was using at the time that
his allotment passed out of Indian ownership. It is reiterated and under-
scored, however, that Hibner cannot be used in any general way as authority
for violating the tribal Winters rights to vater. Under no circumstances
29/ Solicitor's letter, pg. 5. [^fc>te: This quotation, as set up by the
Solicitor, ends with a period. That is incorrect. And vrtiat is emitted
is very important if the tone and terrper of Hibner is to be understood.
HDwever, because Hibner has no application here, further ccnment in re-
gard to the Solicitor's misquotation will not be itade.]
30/ Sol. Let., pg. 5.
31/ See above, pg. 6(d).
523
-28-
should the Indian nations, tribes and people accept the legal concepts ad-
vanced by the Solicitor's Office in reliance upon Powers and Hi bnp>r for the
reasons ej^sressed above. It is inperative, noreover, that all interested
parties cotprehend that the condition for Secretarial approval of Indian
water codes is an admission of loss of Winters Doctrine rights. That ad-
mission could and will be utilized against the Indians as declarations
against their interest if the "Proposed Rules" are not rejected along with
the Solicitor's concepts.
e. Deception in "Proposed Rules" Further Reveals: The Solicitor's
"Proposed Rules" Permits Expanded Use of Water by Non-Indians
and that Expanded Use of Water is Outside the Purview of Those
"Proposed Rules "
Here it is essential to refer to soire of the facts in the Wal-
ton cases which have been reviewed in detail. Walton purchased Indian lands
that had never been irrigated. He undertook, however, to acquire a right
to the use of water frcm the State of Washington. He, likewise, e:>^)anded
the irrigated acreage on his allotunents frcsn zero to approximately 100 acres.
In the process, Walton dried up the stream that was there involved, depriv-
ing the Indian allottees downstream from him with the water that had pre-
viously been available to them. Quite obviously, the Walton case relates
specifically to the phase of the "Proposed Rules" v*iich recognize that non-
Indians may expand their uses of water and that the ejqpanded uses are not
within the purview of the "Proposed Rules." It is equally clear that the
"Proposed Rules," now to be considered, are contrary in ever respect to the
"Colville Water Code" and the "Lummi Water Code," both of which are dis-
cussed.
524
-29-
In the review which precedes imnediately above, the Solicitor has adop-
ted the view — without any sound authority — that a non-Indian purchaser
acquires a Winters Doctrine or a "reserved" right v*ien he purchases lands
which were formerly allotted. The iteasure of those rights is the extent of
the water that had been used by the Indian antecedent to the title to the
allotted lands passing to non- Indians. Thus it is that a non-Indian becomes
an owner to "reserved" rights, all as stated by the Solicitor in grave error.
Equally inportant is the fact that the "Proposed Rules" are strictly
limited to "reserved rights." In that connection, it is again necessary
to turn to the Solicitor's letter to find the itanner in which the Solicitor's
Office would interpret the "Proposed Rules," should they be adopted.
Continuing to rely upon Hibner , the Solicitor says this:
"A non- Indian purchaser, therefore, would get a Winters
Doctrine priority to the amount of water used vd:ien the
land was in trust. The successor in interest can ex-
pand his use thereafter, but we believe that principles
of state law (and the later priority date) should cover
this later use . " 32/
By that statement, the Solicitor's letter agrees to the violation of
Winters rights and to the expanded use by non- Indians of water to irrigate
lands above and beyond that irrigated when the lands went out of Indian own-
ership, both grave losses to the Indian tribes. The Solicitor refers to
the expanded use of water as the "second conponent" of Hibner :
"While the second conponent of Hibner is derived from
federal law, and subject to federal jurisdiction, we
do not believe it has any characteristics of a feder-
ally reserved water rights."
32/ Sol. Let., pg. 5, last sentences of first full paragraph.
525
-30-
How that conclusion is reached is iirpossible to discern. There is no sen-
sible authority for it. Quite obviously, the allotinent outside of the Ft.
Hall Indian Reservation, and the rights to the use of vater claimed there,
were not rights to v*iich the tribe was asserting title on its own behalf.
MDSt assuredly, in Hibner the ei^ianded use was predicated on state law.
Nevertheless, the Solicitor says this: "*** we do not support tribal
jurisdiction over this use of water . " Thus it is that the tribal codes vMch
were formulated with the tremendous e>5)enditure of tinne and money would have
no application to the non-Indian expanded use which the Solicitor refers to
as the second conponent of Hibner .
Predicated i;pon those mistaken concepts of the Solicitor, the "Proposed
Rules" are a travesty. They are without meaning, and, indeed, it is believed
they are without utility. There is thus presented the anamoly of the "Pro-
posed Rules" :
1. The tribes, to secure Secretarial approval to their water •
codes, must acknowledge that a non-Indian succeeds to a
part of the Winters rights to which the tribe claims;
2. moreover, the tribe, in order to obtain Secretarial approv-
al of a water code, mast agree to the e>5)ansion of use by
a non- Indian, which is so destructive to Indian tribes and
people, and that the codes wDuld have no application to
those expanded non-Indian users, all as reviewed in some
detail with exanples by the Solicitor in the attached
letter to Lands Division.
Not only does the Solicitor's letter and the "Proposed Rules," as drafted,
make a travesty of the right of a tribe to administer the water resources
on the reservation, it actually renders bizarre — even weird — the posi-
526
tion that the Lands Divsion has taken in the Walton cases. 33/
f . Violation by the "Proposed Rules," If Mopted, of
(a) Tribal Winters Rights to the Use of Water ;
(b) Tribal Priority for Those Rights
(1) Confiscation of Tribal Winters Rights and Priorities
There has been reviewed with specificity, the concepts
of the Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division in regard to the Walton
and Bel Bay cases. It is to be observed, from the attached Solicitor's
letter, that those cases have proceeded based upon concepts viiich are dia-
itetrically opposed to those that are stated in the attached Solicitor's
letter. Irrespective of the saltatory conduct of the Solicitor's Office
and Lands Division, the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Lummi Tribe
in the Walton and Bel Bay cases continues to assert ownership to the full
equitable title to all water resources on their respective reservations.
They likewise assert the violation of those rights by the defendants in
those cases ire adopting, in part, the positions espoused by both
the Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division, 34/ as to ej^)anded uses after
acquisition of former Indian land. Similarly, in their respective water
codes, the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Lurtmi Indian Tribe make the
same assertions as to ownership of their Winters rights as they do in the
cited cases.
33/ See above analysis of Lands Division position as set forth in the com-
plaint filed by the Lands Division in the Walton cases and the assertions
contained in that coitplaint relative to the power to control the quantity
of water that Walton would be entitled to receive. Relative to the right
to control by Secretarial rules and regulations, the quantity of water
that Walton would be entitled to receive. See footnote, 6, pgs. 6-7.
34/ See above, pg. 29 et seq .
527
-32-
In the event that the Secretary of the Interior would adopt the "Pro-
posed Rules," as formulated and interpreted by the Solicitor's Office, there
are two immediate violations of the tribal rights which would transpire:
1. The Secretary of the Interior, through those "Pro-
posed Rules," would in effect seize Indian Winters
Doctrine rights to the use of water for the bene-
fit of non-Indians;
2. grant to the non- Indians, for whcm the Winters Doc-
trine rights are seized and taken from the tribe,
priorities equal to that of the tribe.
As will be enphasized, the seizure of a priority is, in effect, confiscation
of an invaluable property right 35/ to which the tribes are entitled to hold
and which they should not be forced to share with non- Indians.
It is, of course, elemental, that Winters rights to the use of water
are interests in real property. 36/ It is equally elemental that a priority
for the Winters Doctrine rights is perhaps the most valuable component of
those rights. Thus it is that when the Solicitor's Office — albeit in
error — states, based upon Powers , the non-Indian owner of formerly allot-
ted lands acquired "seme" reserved rights, those "Proposed Rules" in effect
seize and take from the tribe "sane of their Winters rights." 37/ Moreover,
35/ It has been stated authoritively "Property rights in water consist not
alone in the amount of the appropriation, but also in the priority of the
appropriation. It often happens that the chief value of an appropriation
consists in its priority over other appropriations from the same natural
stream. Hence, to deprive a person of his priority is to deprive him of
a iTDst valuable property right ***" From the same source, it is declared,
"A priority right to the use of water, being property, is protected by our
Constitution so that no person can be deprived of it without 'due process.'
(Nichols V. Mcintosh, 19 Colorado 22; 34 Pacific 278, 280 (1893).
36/ 1 Wiel, Water Rights in the Western States, 20, 21, 301 (2rd ed. 1911);
Ashwander v. T.V.A. , 297 U.S. 288, 330 (1936); Lfriited States v. Chandler
Dunbar Conpany, 229 U.S. 53, 73 (1913).
37/ See above, 18 et seq .
93-440 O - 78 - 35
528
-33-
viien t±e Solicitor's Office, albeit in grave error, states, based ipon Hihner ,
that the "scms" of Winters rights taken from the tribe is measured by "*** the
water actually used by the Indian predecessor," 38/ the Secretarial confis-
cation of the Indian Winters rights is consunmated if the "Proposed Rules"
are perndtted to becone effected.
Those "Proposed Rules" are equally clear and equally disastrous in error
in so far as the Western tribes are concerned when the tribes are forced to
share their invaluable Winters rights with non-Indians. Yet, that is pre-
cisely the violation of Indian rights proposed by the Solicitor — when again
in grave error it is stated: "A non-Indian purchaser, therefore, gets a
Winters Doctrine priority to the amount used \«hen the land was in trust." 39/
It is indeed anamolous for the principle agent of the United States trustee
for the Indians — the Secretary of the Interior — to advocate the confisca-
tion of Winters rights and the priority for those rights as the "Proposed
Rules" conterrplate. On the subject of Secretarial confiscation of Indian
property, the Highest Court said this:
"The Secretary's power to control and itanage the property
and affairs of Indians in good faith *** does not extend
so far as to enable the government 'to give away tribal
land to others' *** that 'would not be an exercise of guard-
ianship, but an act of confiscation. ' " 40/
38/ Sol. Let., pg. 5. See above, pg. 29.
39/ See above, pg. 18 et seq. ; see Solicitor's letter, pg. 5.
40/ Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U.S. 476, 497 (1936).
529
(2) Violation of Tribal Winters Rights by the Solicitor's
"Expanding" Non-Indian Use after Acquisition of Indian
Land
Confiscation of tribal Winters rights and priorities pursu-
ant to the "Proposed Rules" has been reviewed. Even more sinister is the
espousal by the Solicitor's Office in the formulation of the "Proposed
Rules" that:
"The successor in interest [of formerly allotted lands] can
expand the use thereof, but we believe that principles of
state law (and a later priority date) should cover this
later use." 41/
There is here reiterated, by reference, the review set forth above relative
to the mistaken concepts of the Solicitor's Office in applying the principles
of the Hitoer case. 42/
The expanded use — the second coitponent of Hihner — by non- Indians
strikes at the very heart of the case of Colville v. Walton . That concept,
as advanced, constitutes one of the most grave injustices that the Solicitor's
Office, by the "Proposed Rules," could inpose upon the tribes. Yet, as
stated above, the Solicitor's Office says that it does "not support tribal
jurisdiction over this use of water." 43/
Because the "Proposed Rules" do not relate to those expanded non-Indian
uses — by far the most serious problem confronting the Indian tribes — the
tribes, and the Secretary alike, are stripped of jurisdiction over thDse
rights by the "Proposed Rules." 44/ Upon any reservation in the setd-arid
41/ See above, pg- 28 et seq . ; attached Solicitor's letter, pg. 5.
42/ See above, pg. 29 et seq.
43/ See above, pg. 30 ; see Solicitor's letter, pg. 9.
44/ Id.
530
-35-
West, the most serious violations stan frcm tlie non-Indian expanded use of
water after the acquisition of formerly allotted lands.
Continuing, the Solicitor states, there is no remedy open to the tribes
over the ejqanded non-Indian use after acquisition of formerly allotted lands,
thus leaving the tribes with the sole remedy of going to Federal court. 45/
In sinple terms, the "Proposed Rules" are not only gravely in error and pro-
ncn-Indian, they are totally impotent in regard to the greatest need of the
tribes — the control of non-Indian expanded use after acquisition of Indian
land within his reservation.
(3) Violation of Winters Rights by the Solicitor's
Attgrpted Application of State Law within the
Western Reservations
In straining to support the non-Indians against the claimed
title of the tribes to Winters Doctrine rights and tribal authority to ad-
minister those rights, the "Proposed Rules," as formulated, are predicated
\:ipon many misconceptions. Hibner , as the Solicitor recognizes in regard to
the non-Indian expanded use after purchase, is predicated on state law.
Proceeding - arguendo - that Hibner might have relevancy — vMch is
denied — the repeated reference to the state laws in the Solicitor's letter
must be considered. The Solicitor's letter quotes this excerpt fron Hibner
and relies upon it: The non-Indian expanded use "*** is subject to those
general rules of law governing the appropriation of use of the public waters
of the state ***" 46/ However, both in the State of Idaho \*ere Hibner
45/ Sol. Let., pg. 10.
46/ Sol. Let, pg. 5.
531
-36-
arose, and in the State of Washington where the Walton and Bel Bay cases
are pending, the state law does not apply to Indian rights to the use of
water. In Idaho, state law is inapplicable to Indian property. 47/ There,
the people of Idaho agreed that they would disclaim all right, title and
interest to Indian property within the State. Moreover, the people of Idaho
recognized that Indian property "*** shall reiiain under the absolute juris-
diction and control of the Congress of the United States ***" Virtually
identical language as that set forth frcm the fundamental laws of Idaho
appears in the Enabling Act and Constitution of the State of Washington.
In MDntana, v^ich has identical language in its Enabling Act and Constitu-
tion with that of the State of Washington, it was held that state law
respecting rights to the use of water had no application within the Flat-
head Indian Reservation. 48/ Of extreme importance, however, here, in re-
gard to the immunity of the Winters rights on Indian reservations from
state law, is the Ahtanum decision.
In that case, the State of Washington, having intervened, was a party.
It sought to have the laws of that jurisdiction applied to the Yakima
Indian Reservation. In rejecting the contention of the state, the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had this to say:
"Rights reserved by treaties [the Yakima, 1855 Treaty] such
as this are not subject to appropriation under state law,
nor has a state power to dispose of them." 49/
47/ See Idaho Admission Bill, Act of July 3, 1890, CJpt. 656, sec. 1; 26
Stat. 215, Idaho Constitution, Article 21, sec. 19.
48/ U.S. V. Mclntire, 101 F. 2d. 650, 653 (1939).
49/ U.S. V. Ahtanum Irrigation District, et al., 236 F.2d. 321, 328 (CA 9,
1956), cert , denied 352 U.S. 988 (1956); 330 F.2d. 897 (1965); 338 F.2d.
307, cert, denied 381 U.S. 924 (1965).
532
-37-
It is, iTDreover, of extreme iitportance that those concepts were reiterated
and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. On the subject, the Supranne Court used
this language: "Arizona also argues, that in any event, water rights can-
not be reserved by Executive Order." Relative to that statement, the High-
est court declared, "We can giA;e but short shrift at this late date to the
arg\iTent that the reservations either of land or water are invalid because
they were originally set apart by Executive. " 50/
In the light of the iimiunity of the tribal Winters rights from state
law, the Solicitor's concepts most be rejected.
(4) Violation of Tribal Winters Rights Espoused by
Lands Division in Bel Bay Case
Reviewed above and enphasized is the fact that the Walton
cases, the Bel Bay case, the attached Solicitor's letter and the attached
"Proposed Rules" are inextricably interrelated. In a motion for partial
sunmary judgement filed in the Bel Bay case, the Lands Division espouses
the concepts and errors advanced by the Solicitor's Office in the attached
letter.
Espousal of the Seizure of Tribal Winters
Rights by lands Division in the Bel Bay Case
There is broad, general adherence by the Lands Divis-
ion to the misconceptions and general attack i:pon the tribal Winters rights
reflected in the attached Solicitor's letter. In the Bel Bay case, the lands
Division declares specifically that a non-Indian purchaser acquires Winters
rights to the use of water when he takes title to formerly allotted lands.
50/ Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 598 (1963).
533
-38-
In regard to the Bel Bay Cartnunity, and the other defendants in the Bel Bay
case, the Lands Division, in its irotion for sunmary judgement, says this:
"*** the defendants Bel Bay Conmunity and Water Association,
*** and individual defendants naired herein are entitled, as
a natter of law, to the use of whatever quantity of water was
being utilized by the previous Indian allottees when the lands
in question were removed fran trust status, such water rights
having a priority as of the date of the creation of the Lumru.
Indian Reservation." 51/
In that sentence, the lands Division attacks, not only the tribal Winters
rights to the vise of water on behalf of non-Indians, but it likewise es-
pouses the concept that the non-Indian purchaser would be entitled to the
same priority as that of the LurtTni Indian Tribe. In light of that attack
upon the Lurtmi rights, it is incredible that Lands Division has the teiit-
erity to assert in the ccmplaint filed in Bel Bay that it is representing
the Lurrmi Indian Tribe. It is irtpossible to perceive of a more serious
violation of Indian Constitutional and civil rights than for Lands Divis-
ion to "appear" to represent the Lumtni Tirbe and then to attack the Tribe's •
rights. As reviewed, the Lumtuis intervened in Bel Bay to protect themselves
frcm Lands Division.
Further following the lead of the Solicitor, the Lands Division es-
pouses the saire erroneous concepts that the Solicitor has adopted relative
to the expanded use of water by a non- Indian subsequent to the acquisition
of formerly allotted lands. Reference is again made to the motion of the
Lands Division for partial summary judgenent in the Bel Bay case. There,
this statement is made:
51/ Motion for partial summary judgement dated October 14, 1976, by Lands
Division in the Bel Bay case, pg. 2, of the motion, lines 15-21.
534
-39-
"With respect to the defendants' rights to the use of water
on these lands following the transfer of Indian to non-
Indian ownership, the right to the use of water will, as a
matter of law, be determined on the basis of the date upon
which waters were actually placed in beneficial use." 52/
In the meitorandum of Points and Authorities in s\jpport of Lands Divi-
sion 's motion for partial summary judgement, the Lands Division reviews in
detail the concepts v*iich appear in the attached Solicitor's letter. In
different language, the saire disastrous results are achieved against the
Lunini Indian Tribe and all the Indians, as will be achieved by the Solici-
tor's Office if the "Proposed Rules" are adopted.
Under the heading of "What is the Nature of the Water Rights of the
Defendants?" the Lands Division pursues the same fallacious misunderstandings
of the Solicitor's Office, all as reviewed above. It then concludes, in
error, based on the Hihner case, that the defendants in the Bel Bay case,
"*** would succeed to a right to the use of vhatever quan-
tity of water was being utilized by the previous Indian
allottee when the lands were removed from trust status.
Such a right would have a priority date as of the date of
the creation of the reservation." 53/
In effect, the memDrandum of Points and Authorities, filed by the Lands Divis-
ion is identical with the position taken by the Solicitor's Office and that
stated in the motion. Once again, as reiterated and re-enphasized, attacks
of that nature by the Lands Division upon the Lutmii Indian Tribe are uncon-
scionable Continuing with the misconceptions of the Solicitor as to mean-
ing of the Hibner case and its inapplicability to the Bel Bay case, the Lands
Division says this:
52/ Partial summary judganent, dated October 14, 1976, pg. 2, lines 23-27.
53/ Memorandum in sv^jport of motion for partial summairy judganent, Bel Bay
case, pg. 22, lines 14-19.
535
-40-
"With respect to the rights to the use of water of these
lands following the transfer frcm Indian to non-Indian
ownership, the right to use water would be predicated on
the application of a given amount of water to beneficial
use, with a priority as of the date of such use." 54/
Nbnifestly, the Lands Division, vMle purporting to represent the Lunmi Ttibe,
is vigorously ejqxiunding the right of the non-Indians to es^^and their xase
of vrater, applying vater title to the use v*iich resides in the Tribe, but
without authority from the Tribe for that water use. The unconscionable nat-
ure of this conduct must be considered in detail v*ien the "Proposed Rules"
are being reviewed. Quite obviously, the tone and terrper of the "Proposed
Rules," although deceptive in nature, are identical in concept with the
Solicitor and the Lands Division in the attack upon the Winters rights of
the Indian people. It is of interest that the Lands Division, having no
authority to support its position in regard to the seizure of Indian rights
to the use of water for the benefit of non-Indians, comes forth with this
policy pronouncement, which had to be fabricated for this particular motion ^
for partial summary judgement. The Lands Division says this,
"Such a right is in keeping with federal policy and the
local rules and customs relating to appropriation by non-
Indian settlers of waters in the arid West as evidenced
by the Desert Capitalized lands Act and its predecessor."
That statement is ridiculous in the light of the Pelton case 55/ and other
cases on the subject. It is highly inappropriate for the Lands Division to
announce false policy determinations diametrically opposed to the law as enim-
ciated by the courts both as to Indian Winters rights or the vastly differ-
ent rights claimed by the National Government.
54/ Id., lines 20-24.
55/ Federal Power Conmission v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435, 448 (1955)
536
-41-
III. SUPPRESSICN OF TRIBAL PCWER
OF SELF-DETEPMINATION AND
SELF-GOVERNMENT
OONSTITOTES METHODS USED BY
THE SOLICITOR AND LANDS DIVISION
TO VIOLATE TRIBAL RIGHTS
A. Solicitor ' s Arbitrary and Capricious Conduct Violate Tribal Titles
and Powers
Reference has previously been made to the Congressional will that the
Secretary of the Interior may prescribe rxiLes and regulations for the just
and equal distribution of water "among Indians residing" on reservations
requiring water for agricultiire. 56/ That Act, 25 U.S.C. 381, in the "Pro-
posed Rules," is grossly misinterpreted to:
"require the tribes to accept conditions to the approval of
their water codes which will force them to (a) share their
Winters rights with non-Indian purchasers of allotted lands;
(b) share their priorities with non-Indian purchasers of
allotted lands; and (c) restrict the tribes fron regulating,
under their water codes, the expanded use of water by non-
Indians after the acquisition of formerly allotted lands." 57/
Arrogant si^jpression of Western Indian people and the confiscation of
their water rights is the history of the Solicitor's Office and Lands Divis-
ion. 58/
56/ See above, footnote 3, 25 U.S.C. 381; That Act is the predicate for
the "Proposed Rules."
57/ See above, pg. 28, attached "Proposed Rules," pg. 14886, Part 260.3,
(i) (ii) .
58/ See Federal Encroachment on Indian Rights, an Impairment of Reservation
Development, pg. 460, 492 et seq . , in Subccran. on Economy in Government
of the Joint Econcmic Ccmm. , 91st Cong., 1st Sess., Towards Eooncndc De-
velopment for Native American Ccmmunities Conm. (1969) . Reprinted in
Hearings on Administrative Practices and Procedures relating to Protec-
tion of Indian Natural Resources before the Subcarro. on Administrative
Practice and Procedures on Senate Conn, on the Judiciary, 92nd Cong. ,
1st Sess., Part 1 at 175, 191-92 (1971).
537
-42-
It is clear frcm the reliance by the Solicitor upon 25 U.S.C. 381 and the
attatpted delegation of Secretarial power pursuant to it to the tribes, that
the Solicitor, in error, is in effect denying that the tribes have authority
to administer their own Winters rights. That is contrary to the law. Mani-
festly, the tribal authority to nanage their own affairs and their Winters
rights is inherent. Dong before the non- Indians "discovered" the North
ftnerican Continent, the tribes had their property, their own laws, and in-
stitutions. They effectively maintained their jvirisdiction over their do-
inain by force of arms where necessary. 59/ They could and did, by the exer-
cise of their sovereign power, wage ver and conclude treaties of peace among
themselves and later with foreign powers and the National Government. At
no time has the Congress stripped frcm the tribes their title to and their
powers to edminister their Winters Doctrine rights to the use of water.
Hence, the atterrpted utilization of the Secretarial power, under 25 U.S.C.
381, is an effort by the Solicitor's Office to restrict the tribal sovereign
power to administer those rights.
Under those circumstances, it is of inperative necessity that the tribes
reject the "Proposed Rules," for a different course would indicate by their ac-
ceptance of the Solicitor's erroneous concept that they do not have their own
power to administer their rights. It, of course, could be interpreted that
the only way the Solicitor's Office can effectively represent their prin-
ciple constituents, the non-Indians, is to limit the tribal authority in
the manner that 25 U.S.C. 381 has been interpreted by the Solicitor's Office
59/ Wbrcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S.C. 515; 6 Pet. 515, 557 (1932); McClanahan
V. Arizona, 411 U.S. 164, 168 (1973).
538
-43-
in the formulation of the "Proposed Rules." The latter, perhaps, is the
better interpretation and the best basis for catprehending the activities
of the Solicitor in developing those "Proposed Rules."
B. Restrictions Relative to Irrigation Projects Further Evidences Attack
Upon Trital Powers and Tribal Rights
One of the conditions of approval of Indian water codes as contained
in the "Proposed Rules," is tribal agreement that "the code does not seek
to regiiLate rights to the use of water granted or created by federal stat-
utes to purchasers of land within an irrigation project located within any
Indian reservation and adtninistered hy the Bureau of Indian Affairs ***" 60/
Again, the language used in the "Proposed Rules" is an attack upon the titles
of the tribes to Winters Doctrine rights to the use of water within irrigation
projects constructed on their reservations. The langioage utilized con-
stitutes an agreement by the tribes — to their irreparable damage — that
title to their Winters rights resides with the project. Equally important
is the fact that the language used constitutes a harsh anti-Indian legal
interpretation that the tribes are without power and authority to administer
the invaluable rights used on those projects. Once again, the Solicitor,
violating the canons of legal ethics, actively supports non-Indians and
attempts to force legal concepts upon the Indians to their irreparable damage.
Under no circumstances shoiiLd the tribes agree that their tribal water
codes, exeirpt frcm their operation of the irrigation projects vAiich have the
most valuable lands and the most valuable Winters rights to the use of water
within their reservations.
60/ Attached "Proposed Rules," Part 260, sec. 260.3(5).
539
C. ;^3peals Process Further Irrpinges on Tribal Rights and Tribal Autharity
The appeals process, as set forth in the "Proposed Rules," is totally \m-
nanageable. It forces the tribal codes to contain provisions that appeals vrLLl
be "vdthin the jurisdiction of the Board of Indian i^jpeals of the Office of
Hearings and i^jpeals. Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior."
That provision is vtolly unsatisfactory. 61/ Quite obviously, it is the in-
tention of the Solicitor's Office to obtain and retain control — to the greatest
extent possible — of all aspects of the operations of the "Proposed Rules."
By forcing the appeals into the Office of Hearings and Appeals within the
Department, the chance of a fair hearing would be governed by the extent of
the Solicitor's participation in the appeals. Undoubtedly, to the fullest ex-
tent possible, the spurious interpretation of Powers , Hibner and the other
distortions of the law, \^iich have been reviewed above, would be applied on an
a£^)eal, if the Solicitor's participation was in any way permitted. Adherence
to those concepts are manifested with the grave threats to the Indian tribes .
in both the Walton and Bel Bay cases. It is irtpossible to believe that the
same course would not be followed in regard to administrative appeals.
&iite aside frcan the unconscionable conflicts of interest of the Solici-
tor's Office, the outocme of appeals in regard to the tribes, the process pro-
posed is highly objectionable. Forcing appeals into the ponderous and slow-
moving bureaucracy is coipletely unsatisfactory. When conflicts occur over
rights to use of water during a period of shortage, there is an irrperative
necessity of expeditious resolution of than if irreparable damage is to be
avoided. That expeditious disposition of matters is inrpossible in the Office
of Hearings and ^peals.
61/ Attached "Proposed Rules," pg. 14887, Part 260, sec. 260.6, "Appeals.'
540
Provisions have been trade in the Colville Water Code for imnediate appel-
late action within the tribal areas with redress to the local federal court if
desired. That is the only reasonable and sensible proceeding to vMch there
should be adherence. Expeditious disposition of conflicting claims to water
during periods of shortage will be the true measure of the value of any tribal
water code.
Reference is again made to the history of water codes, all as set forth above.
There is enphasized that the Colville Tribes and the other tribes diligently en-
deavored for the last decade to establish water codes suited to their reser-
vations and needs. One of the immutable criterion was, and is, that control,
management and administration of water resources must be iraintained on the res-
ervation. That circumstance ensues because the process of regulation or rotation
of meager water supplies is a day-to-day, even hourly, decision-naking process.
Neither the Bureau of Indian Affairs nor the Solicitor's Office have the
personnel or the funds to administer the water codes as prepared. Moreover, if
they were to control the water resources on the reservation as the "Proposed
Rules" conterplate, it is manifest that the great need for local, imnediate de-
cisions would be defeated. That is the primary reason, strictly from the stand-
point of administration that the "Proposed Rules" are inadequate. They are rep-
resentative of vSiy the tribes have universally resisted the intrustion into res-
ervation management of the cumberscxne bureaucratic concepts which are all per-
vasive in the "Proposed Rules." Quite obviously, the "Proposed Rules" would
permit a further building of an already imwieldy bureaucracy and would afford
an opportimity for further suppression of the tribal powers and the substitu-
tion of those powers by the bureaucratic attenpts to usurp the inherent author-
ity of the tribes.
541
-46-
IV. TRUST VIOIATiaiS
OWING TO THE
INDIAN TRIBES
PREVADE MJL ASPECTS OF
THE "PRDPOSED HJLES"
A. "No Self-Respecting Law Firm *** would allow itself to occupy the
position of the Solicitor and Lands Division respecting the "Pro-
posed Rules " 62/
Conflicts of interest within the Solicitor's Office are all pervasive.
Historically, the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division have espoused non-
Indian claims to water and non-Indian water projects against the Indian
nations, tribes and people. When the Secretary's interest conflicts with
Indian interest, they invariably support the Secretary. Their conduct, in
advocating the "Proposed Rules" and the anti-Indian rationale adhered to
in the formulation of the "Proposed Rules," exoiplify the disastrous con-
sequences of those all encanpassing conflicts of interest. That shameful
conflict, so destructive to the Indians, gave rise to the Presidential
stateinent, that "no self-respecting law firm**" would allow itself to be
in the position of the Solicitor and Lands Division. Officials of the In-
terior Department have readily admitted their conflicts of interest. 63/
That conflict of interest is the overriding feature of the "Proposed Rules."
Clearly, the Solicitor's Office and clearly the Lands Divisjon, in the
prosecution of the Walton and Bel Bay cases have aligned themselves against
62/ Cong. Rec. Senate, July 9, 1970, pg. 10894 et seq. , sec. 8, 10986.
63/ Hearings before the Subconm. on Indian Affairs, Conin. on Interior and
Indian Affairs, United States Senate, September 21, 25, 1970.
542
-47-
the Indian tribes. Equally clear, those are studied violations of this
Nation's trust responsibility to the Indian people. It is an anamoly that
the unethical conduct would go to the extent that is found in the "Proposed
Rules."
B. Violation of the Trust Obligation Requires Rejection of "Proposed Rules"
In the law of trust, there is an unvarying obligation: "The trustee
is under a duty to administer the trvist solely in the interest of the bene-
ficiary." 64/ That review of the trustee's obligation owing to the Indian
people and the Solicitor's violation of it was re-orphasized by Reid Chambers,
former Associate Solicitor, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior. 65/
In regard to this Nation's trust obligation owing to the Indian tribes,
a court had this to say: The United States owes to the Indians "the most
exacting fiduciary standard." 66/ It is evident that the Solicitor's Office,
as an agent of the trustee United States, violated its obligation to pre-
pare the "Proposed Rules" in a manner that meets the highest standards of
64/ Federal Encroachment on Indian Water Rights and the Iirpairment of Reser-
vation Development in Subcontn. on Econcmy in Government of the Joint
Econcmic Coirni. , 91st Cong., 1st Sess. , Ccitim. Towards Economic Development
for Native American Conmunities Ccnm. (Print. 1969) pgs. 460, 490-493; Re-
printed in Hearings on Administrative Practices and Procedxires Relating
to Protection of Indian Natural Resources before the Suboorrm. on Adminis-
trative Practice and Procedure of the Sen. Ccxtm. on the Judiciary, 93rd
Cong., 1st Sess., Part 1 at 175, 191-192.
65/ Chambers, Discharge of Federal Trust Responsibility to Enforce Claims of
Indian Tribes: Case Studies of Bureaucratic Conflicts of Interest Ccnm.
in Subcomm. on Administrative Practices and Procedures of the Senate Corm.
of the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 2nd Sess., A Study of Administrative Con-
flicts of Interest in the Protection of Indian Natural Resources, 11 Ccnm.
Print. 1971, Reprinted in the Hearing on Administrative Practices and Pro-
cedures Relating to the Protection of Indian Natural Resources before the
Subcon. on Administrative Practices and Procedures of the Senate Corm. on
the Judiciary, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., Part 1 at 235, 238-248 (1971).
66/ Navajo Tribe of Indians v. U.S., 364 F.2d. 320, 322 (Ct. Cls. 1966).
543
-48-
fidelity. They should be prepared with the objective of protecting the
Indian interest — rather than violating it. Performance by the Solicitor's
Office of its responsibilities must be with the highest care, skill and
diligence in the furtherance of the Indian interests. The "Proposed Rules"
are a frivolous violation of those standards.
implying the standards of the trustee to the deceptive, violative, and
suppressive "Proposed Rules," it is apparent that the Solicitor has made a
travesty of the trust responsibility owing to the Indian people. As a con-
sequence, those "Proposed Rules" must be rejected out of hand. That con-
clusion is, of course, equally applicable to Lands Division conduct of the
Vfeilton and Bel Bay cases.
There can be no other recanroendation than that the "Proposed Rules"
be withdrawn. That alone will not suffice. The "Proposed Rules" are but
manifestations of the arrogant violations of the trust obligations by the
Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division stertming from their all encom-
passing conflicts of interest. Corrective measures must inrtiediately be
taken to preculde the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division frcm forcing
their concepts i:5XDn Indian nations, tribes and people against the will of
the Indian people.
National Congress
of American Indians
Mel Tonasket
President
93-440 O - 78 - 36
544
IN WEPCV REFCI) lOi
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
as
msEP
Honorable Peter R. Taft
Assistant Attorney General
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Taft:
Re: United States v. Walton , Civil No. 3421,
E.D. Wash.; United States v. Bel Bay
Community and Water Association , Civil
No. 303-71C2. W.D. Wash.
As you know, by letters of September 14, 1971 and February 2,
1973, we asked your Department to file the above actions.
In these letters , we asked you to take the position "that
the Secretary of the Interior has the exclusive jurisdiction
to control and administer the allocation of waters on tribal,
eillotted and formerly allotted lands" on the Colville and
Lummi reservations pursuant to 25 U.S.C. S381. We also asked
you to assert that the State of Washington has no authority
to issue water permits to non-Indians on these reservations,
-and that the state should be enjoined from issuing such
permits.
These cases have been pending for several years. The United
States and the tribes have undertaken numerous studies.
From these studies and through discovery, the facts involved
in these cases have been clarified. Also, our views of
the proper legal theories to be espoused have undergone
considerable refinement and some alteration. After much
deliberation, and after meetings vtith you and your staff,
we sent you a letter on July 2, 1976, proposing a different
legal position in these cases. You responded to that letter
with additional proposals on July 19, and we have since that
date had a number of further discussions. We now propose
that the legal position to be asserted by the United States
should be modified as follows.
545
There are two basic questions:
. (1) Do Indian allottees and non-Indian
successors in interest to Indian allottees
hold any portion of the Winters Doctrine
reserved right to the use of water? .. ' .
(2) What is the respective extent of the
authority of the Secretary, the state and
the tribes to regulate the use of waters
on Indicui reservations.? .-. ■
Our analysis of the legal questions follows.
1 ..'...:'.
On the first question, our views are unchanged from our
■July 2 letter and we understand that you agree with them.
We believe that the Indian allottees and their non-Indian
successors in interest do hold some reserved rights to the
use of water. The only Supreme Court decision which speaks
to this question is United States v. Powers , 305 U.S. 527
(1939) . In Powers, the United States brought suit to enjoin
the non-Indian successors in interest to certain Indian
allottees on the Crow Reservation in Montana "from using
or diverting any water from two streams on the Reservation."
The United States contended that Congress had given it
ownership and control of all reserved waters on the Crow
Reservation. The Secretary of the Interior had constructed
certain irrigation projects prior to making allotments of
reservation lands, and the United States argued that this
construction plus its ownership and control of the reserved,
waters "sufficed to dedicate and reserve sufficient water
for full utilization of these projects." 305 U.S. at 532.
The Court rejected the government's position, and appeared
to accept the arguments of the non-Indian water users. It
said:
"respondents maintain- that under the
■Treaty of 1868 waters within the
reservation were reserved for the
equal benefit of tribal members
(Winters v. United States, 207 U.S.
546
"564) and that when allotments of land
were duly made for exclusive use and
thereafter conveyed in fee, the right
to use some portion of' tribal waters
essential for cultivation passed to
the owners.
"The respondents' claim to the extent
stated is well founded." (Id at 532)"
The Court concluded: ..... . .
"The petitioners have shown no right
to the injunction asked. We do not
consider the extent or precise nature
of respondents' righns in the waters .
The present proceeding is not properly
framed to that end." (Id. at 533)
(emphasis added) . ..•..-
The interpretation of Powers as holding that allottees and
their successors in interest succeed to some reserved water
right finds support in subsequent cases. E.g., Preston v.
United States , 352 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1965); Segundo v. United
States , 123 F. Supp. 554 (S.D. Cal. 1954). This office has
been vigorously urged by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
supported by the Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs and
the Colville and Lummi tribes r to adopt a litigating position
"that Powers does not compel the conclusion that allottees
and their successors in interest succeed to a reserved water
right. Their argument is that this question was not directly
contested or presented before the Court in Pov/ers or in
subsequent cases like Segundo and Preston , and that the
holding in Powers was simply that the United States was
not entitled to the extraordinary relief of an injunction
on the theories it advanced in that case. Under^ their view,
the language quoted above in Powers is mere dictum.
Moreover, they assert that under ordinary principles of
Indian law, the tribal ovmership of Winters Doctrine water
rights has never been clearly and expressly transferred by
Congress, and must therefore remain in the tribe. We have
carefully considered and reflected on this argument, but
decided to reject it.
547
One district court case. United States v. Hibner , 27 ■F.2d
909 (D. -Ida. 1928), considers the question — left open by'
P owers — of the scope of the "allottees ' right and that of "■
their successors in interest- ' In Hibner , the court . . -
extended an earlier case V — which held that the leasing
of allotteed lands to a non-Indian did constitute the •
abandonment of the individual water right expressly
created by the 1898 agreement with the Shoshone-Bannock
Tri±>e of the Fort Hall Reservation^ — to hold that sale
of an allotment did not extinguish the allottee's' . • '
reserved water right. The Court first stated: - ■ ■_
"a purchaser of such land and water
■ rights acquires, as under other sales, . -.
the title and rights held by the . -
Indians, and there should be awarded
to such purchaser the same character ' . .'
of water right with equal priority
as those of the Indians. (Id. at
. 912) ." ~~
The court then held, however, that "the status of the water
right after it has passed to others by the Indians seems
to be somewhat different from while such right is retained
by the Indians." (Id.) The court stated that the non- • "
Indian is "entitled to a water fight for the actual
acreage that v/as under irrigation at the time title
passed from the Indians, and such increased acreage as he
might v^ith reasonable diligence place under irrigation,
which v/ould give to him, under the doctrine of relation,
'the same priority as owned by the Indians." Thereafter,
the non-Indian can secure a state law right to appropriate
additional v/aters v/ith a priority date as of the time
of commencing those later appropriations. The court
reasoned, plausibly, that when the water right passed out
of trust status, the purpose of the reservation no longer
required a reserved water right which expands to satisfy
future needs. The court gave as its reason that
7 Skeem v. United States, 263 Fed. 93 (9th Cir. 1921) .
548
■ "the principle invoked by the courts for
the protection of. the Indian as long as he
retains title to his lands does not prevail
cind apply to the white man, and the reason
for so holding is that there was reserved
xinto the Indians the absolute right to own .
and use in their own way the v/ater for their
lands, while the white man, as soon as he
becomes owner of the Indicins lands, is
subject to those general rules of law , '
governing the appropriation and use of the ' ••
public waters of the state."
We ask you to take the position that the scope of the
reserved right which passes to allottees and successors
in interest pursuant to Powers is that set forth in
Hibner except that we ask you to argue that the non-Indian's
reserved right should be limited to the water actually used
by the Indian predecessor. We think that — as the court
noted — the federal purpose for an expandable Winters type
reserved right ceases when the lands pass out of trust.
A non-Indian purchaser, therefore, would get a Winters
Doctrine priority to the amount of water used v/hen the
land V7as in trust. The successor in interest can expand
his use thereafter, but we believe that principles of state
law Cand a later priority date) should cover this later
use.
n • ' -■ •■ •■- • • ' ■•■■.
It remains to discuss the respective authority of the
Secretary, the state and the tribe to regulate the use of
water on Indian reservations.
Section 7 of the General Allotment Act of 1887, 25 U.S.C. S381,
is the only provision conferring jurisdiction on the Secretary
to regulate use of reservation water rights. It reads:
"In cases where the use of water for
irrigation is necessary to render the
lands v/ithin any Indian reservation
available for agricultural purposes,
the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to prescribe rules and
•regulations as he may deem necessary
549
to secure a just and equitable
distribution thereof among Indians ■ ' " .
residing upon any such reservations;
cind no other appropriation or grant
of water by any riparian proprietor
shall be authorized or permitted
■. .' to the damage of any other riparian
proprietor."
We stated on July 2 that in our view Section 381 does not confer
jvirisdiction on the Secretary — exclusive of tribes — to regulate
all uses of water on Indian reservations. First, the statute
is limited to "water for irrigation." Secondly, the statute
authorizes the distribution of this water "among Indians
residing upon [the] . . . reservation." This confers no
authority upon the Secretary to deliver any water to
non-Indians. . Moreover, the Secretary's authority to regulate
any v;ater use by non-Indians under this statute is very
doubtful; at most, it v/ould seem he could stop uses of water
by non-Indians that interfere with Indian uses.
In your July 19 response, you indicated that a somewhat broader
view of Section 381 would be supportable. Since it applies
to allotments, you suggest that it could extend to "patented
lands," and thus to non-Indians. You also indicated that,
in your viev;. Section 381 would not prohibit the tribes from
exercising control over the reserved water rights (from
our discussions, we have agreed that this means waters
used on trust lands and the first component of the rights
described in Hibner) so long as the exercise of this tribal .
authority was consistent with the trust responsibility of
the United States with respect to the lands.
Although we recognize that a more expansive interpretation
of Section 381 could be argued to a court, we do not choose
to adopt that construction of the statute. However, we
have jointly formulated a proposal which v;ill make
resolution of this issue, and the question of the precise
extent of tribal jurisdiction, unnecessary. Under Section
381, the Secretary has authority "to prescribe rules and
regulations deemed necessary to secure a just and equal
distribution of v/aters." We propose that this Department
550
will adopt regulations under Section 381 delegating
substantial regulatory authority to the tribes to adopt
water codes on particular reservations- These regulations
will state that the Department will approve individual
I tribal water codes regulating the use of water reserved
under the Winters Doctrine on the tribe's reservation so
long as the following conditions are met:
(1) The tribal code provides acceptable
due process procedures to protect the
rights of persons subject to them, ...
ultimately permitting judicial review of
determinations in the federal courts;
C2) The tribe establishes institutions
that are adequate to administer the water
code;
(3) The tribal code provides that it
does not divest any valid rights vmder
federal law as may be established by
courts of competent jurisdiction;
(4) The tribe seeks only to regulate
the use of reserved \vater rights, which . .
includes tribally ov/ned v/ater rights,
rights owned by allottees , and the
"first component" of the rights
described in Hibner ;
(5) The tribal water codes would not
regulate the use of water within
statutory irrigation projects on the
reservation with water rights created
by federal statutes.
It is our intention to proceed forthwith with the drafting
of such Departmental regulations and to publish them as
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for public .
comment. As we prepare the precise regulations, the
general conditions suggested above will, of course, be
honed in greater detail. We will do this in close
551
consultation with Myles Flint of your office. We are
furnishing you, however, with this outline of the
regulations at the present time to enable you to meet the
court deadline of October 8 in Bel Bay case .
This proposal obviates the necessity^of^adopting a position
as to the precise scope of Sectior^''39^L' authority and of
tribal jurisdiction as far as non-lri^ians are concerned.
By combining the governmental powers of the Secretary
cuid the tribe, federal-tribal authority is exercised.
It does not matter, for example, whether the tribe in
its adoption of tribal water codes is exercising
delegated authority or inherent tribal power. See
D nited States v. Mazurie , 419 U.S. 544 (1975).
It remains to discuss the "second component" of the Hibner
test. In our July 2 letter, we asked that you take the
position that states have a limited authority to issue
permits to non-Indian landowners on an Indian reservation
who claim a right to use v/ater pursuant to this "second
component;" that is, an appropriative type right to the
use of water under state law principles with a priority •
date after their purchase of their former trust allotment.
V?e have carefully considered the conclusions in' your
July 19 letter that such questions are ones of. federal
(not state) lavr, that administration of such rights
should. not be subject to state jurisdiction, but that
federal law may incoirporate state law concepts such as
the prior appropriation doctrine for purposes of .
interrelating the rights, of non-Indians under the Hibner
case to V/inters Doctrine rights. As you reasoned in that .
letter, state jurisdiction over the use of water derives
from the Desert Lands Act of 1877, 19 Stat. 377, 43 U.S.C.
S321, and its predecessors. That Act confers plenary
control on states over nonnavigable v/aters on the public
domain . See Cappaert v. United States , U.S. ,
44 L.v;. 4756 (June 7, 1976); FPC v. Orego n, 349 U.S. 435
448 (1955); Power Co. v. Cement Co ., 295 U.S. 142, 158,
163-164 (1935) . Reserved lands held in trust for an
Indian tribe or withdrawn from the public domain for
other uses are obviously not public lands, and the state
has no pov/er to regulate the exercise of reserved water
rights. E.g., United States v. Mclntire , 101 F.2d 650
(9th Cir. 1939) .
552
When lands within the exterior boundaries of an Indian
reservation pass out of trust status and into, fee,
they do not become public. lands nor do they become a .
portion of the public domain in the sense that they
are subject to sale or other disposition under the
general land laws. See Union Pacific R.R. Co. v
Harris , 215 U.S. 386, 388 (1909); Ash Sheep Co. v. . .
United States , 252 U.S. 159, 166 (1920); Seymour v.
Superintendent , 368 U.S. 351, 355 (1961) ; Mattz v.
Arnett , 412 U.S. 481, 497 (1973). Rights to the use
of water on these lands, even when in fee o\^nership,
would accordingly, be determined by federal law
rather than state law. See United States v. Mclntire ,
101 F.2d 650, 653-654 (9th Cir. , 1939); Tweedy v.
Texas Company , 286 F. Supp. 383, 395 (D. Mont. 1968)
United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation District , 236 F.2d
321 (9th Cir.) cert. den. 352 U.S. 988 (1957). Since in
these cases the State of Washington can only exercise
jurisdiction over the use of water as derived from the '
Desert Lands Act, this does not provide any basis for
jurisdiction by the State on either reservation. We have
decided to concur in your analysis and conclusions, and
therefore ask you to continue to assert that the ' '^
regulation of the use of water on tribal lands, trust ""'■
allotments and formerly allotted lands is exclusively
a matter of federal and/or tribal jurisdiction.
VThile, the second component of the Hibner right is .
derived from federal law, and subject to federal-
jurisdiction, we do not believe, _it has any .• ■_j
characteristics of a federally reserved water right. -
Accordingly, v/e do not support tribal jurisdiction
over this use of water. Federal statutory law is
silent on the administrative regulation of this use
of water. As you point out in your July 9' letter,
federal law would apply, and incorporates state law
doctrines. If a landowner were to exceed his rights
under this second component, and interfere with reserved
rights, we believe the proper remedy would be an
injunctive action in federal court against him (or,
alternatively, a general quiet title adjudication
looking tov/ard a decree administered by a
water-master) . There would, in our view, be no
proper tribal administrative remedies.
553
At this juncture, an illustrative example may be
helpful. If a reservation v/ere established in 1860,
and allotted in 1900, and an Indian allottee had
applied 5 acre feet of water annually to his allotment
before it passed out of trust in 1940, the non-Indian
successor of interest would have a Winters type • '
reserved water right to use 5 acre fee with an 1860
priority date (or an immemorial priority in appropriate
circumstances) . If he then applied a total of 20 acre ■
feet after 1940, he would have an additional 15 acre
feet with a 1940 (or later) priority. This second
component (v/ith the 1940 or later priority) of the
Hibner right. would be junior to all reserved rights.
These reserved rights (including the 5 acre-foot
right which is the "first component" of Hibner ) would
be regulated by an approved tribal water code. If the
landowner exceeded his reserved rights, and the persons
entitled to reserved rights Cas determined pursuant
to the tribal code by, for example, the issuance of
permits) were injured, their remedy or that of the
United States as trustee would be in federal court.
This letter in its entirety supplants my letter to you of
July 2, 1976, which letter is hereby withdrawn- We
appreciate the mutually frank and cooperative discussions
we have had with your office concerning these cases within
the past few months, and hope that this produces a
mutually agreeable position for both our Departments.
Sincerely,
H.) Gregory Austin
.Solicitor
554
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Sureau of Indian Affairs
[ 25 CFR Part 260 ]
INDIAN RESERVATIONS
Use of V/ater
Notice is hereby given that it Is pro-
posed to issue Part 260 of Title- 2S of the
Code of Federal Regulations. Tliese-reg-
ulations are proposed pursuant to theau-
thorlty contained in Section T of the
Act of February 8. 188T «24 Stat. 390. 25
TX.S.C. la) . Revised Statute-46i t2»U.S.C.
2) and Revised Statute- 455 <2S U.S.C.
The purposes of these regulations ace:
(a) To fulfitr the Department's trust
responsibility to provide a method to pre-
serve and protect in perpetuity all riylit.-?
to theusfrof water reserved for the bene-
fit of the Indians: (b) to recoiraizc, pro-
vide for»; and assist Itt the^xerct;e of the
scvereigir authority- of Indian tribes
within- their- reservations to 'govern, the
oseof all reserved water-rig^hts therefn;
Cct to provide for" the delegation to
Indian tribes of the Secretary's authority
to prescribe rules and regulations dis-
tributing water on Indian reser\atlon.s to
persons and entities entitled to use re-
served water rights; and id) to provide
for the present. and future uevelopmenc
of Indian reservations, including Indian
Pueblos, through the use of their resened
water rights.
555
It 13 tti» poUc7 Of ths Departiaent o!
the Interior, whenever practicable, to
BiTord the public an opportunity to par-
iclpate In the ndemaltlng process. Ac-
iordiagly Interested persons may submit
"vritten eommenta. suzgestlons. or objec-
tions rreartHng tbe proposed reyulations
'o the Commissioner of Ia<ll»a ASairs,
department of the Interior. Waaiilng-
oon. D.C. 20240. by April 18, 1977.
It Is proDOsed that Psrt 260 of TlUe
25 or th« Code of Pe<lena regulations
Kill read a» lonows:
7. Art of Pebraniy 8. 1387
(24 St»t. S90k 05 U3.C. Sai). .\rt of Aufrm'
». l-JM (60 3t»t 839. 2.1 UiiC. 1») K*Tta«l
Statu t» 463 (35 CT.S.C. 2) onfi BerljoU St»tut»
485 (25UAC.9).
250.1
D^mlkms.
(a) "Secretary" mpons the Secretary
of the Interior or hl3 delegated repre-
sentative.
<b) "ReseTTed water rights" tnrans
a-.c»9 rights to the use of w-aters reco?-
olzed !« reserved In accordance witia the
principles enunciated In Wfnferj v.
United Staza, 207 nj3. 564 (15Ca), and
.■••jboequeot cases, which rlshts h;ive
■;iti--er an toraemorial priority or a
,-jrtortty date aa. of tee est«J)llstiicent of
the reservation.
(c> "E«ieflcl3l use" means any use of
water, consumptive or ofiwrwise. ror
agricultural, domestic, municipal, com-
merxMal, Izidcstrlal, a^^tbetx. religious,
or r-^reational purpoKes, or for the
maintenance of adequate .stream Cows
for fishery, enviromnental, or other
fcensflclal purposes on an Indian resar-
vo.llon,
<d) "Just and e<rJtable distribution
of r»3erTwl water rlshts" mean* a
method of allocating the available water
amonjt ti3cs» entitled thereto In such a
manner that aO these similarly situated
will be given an etjual opportunity to
make benefldal use of the water, the
allccatlon t>etn^ tn such a manner as to
alleviato hardship where possible.
(e) A "-ifater code" or "code" shall
ni^an ordinances, niles, and regulations
adopted by the governing body of on In-
dian tribe which provide for regulation
",cd control of the uze of reserved water
;l5hts a.-nong those entitled thereto In
r.ccordani:8 with the tribe's consUtutlon,
bylaws, o." other applicable laws.
(') "Icriian tribe" or "sribe" cief>n3
-,\ tribe. bi.;d or identiflaWe group of I;i-
diins ow-nLig waUir rlghta for which the
Cnited Stales ha3 a trudt responsiiJll.ty.
(S) A "Ui'^by-use b-ssis" means that a
septirate permit shall b? l5.iued for each
seiiarate use of water which .ihall contain
ali pertinent Information with reipect to
that use. However projects s'Kh as Irrlsa-
tinn projects may file a single ccnioil-
d.itcd applicatloQ d:;5crlblng the exact
PROPOSED auiES
l.%nd to be san.ed. each use planned and
the amount, period, and nature thereof.
§ 260J! Purixw.r...
The purpcsea of these regulations are:
<a) To fuiflll the Department's trust
responsibility to provide a method to pre-
serve and protect in perpetuity all rights
to the use of water reserved for the bene-
fit of the Indians;
( b) To recognize, provide for. and as-
sist In the exercise of the sovereign au-
thority of Indian tribes within their res-
ervations to govern the use of all reserved
Water rights therein;
(c) To provide for the delegation to
Indlaai tribe* of the Secretary's authority
to prescribe rules and regulatloiui distrib-
uting water on Indian reservations to
persons and entitles entitled to use le-
served water rights; and
(d) To provide for the present and fu-
ture development of Indian rese.-vations.
Including Indian Fuebios. through the
use of tiielr reserved water rights.
S 260.3 Approval of IribM waltr co<l.v«.
(a) Any Indian tribe may adopt, wit'a
approval of the Secretary, and enforce
a water code to control, distribute, allo-
cate and regulate the use of reserved
water rights on its reservation for a ben-
eficial use by ariy person or entity, in-
cluding non-Indian persons and entitles,
that may be entitled to exercise such re-
served water rights. Upon adoption, this
WEter code shall be submitted to the
Commissioner of Inaian Affairs who shall
review the code and submit It. with his
recommendations to the Secretary for
formal approval or disapproval.
(b) The Secre^.^ry shall approve the
code If 11 satisfies the foUowing reqmre-
ment-i: - '
(1) The code aJords procedural due
process of law to all perrons claiming
the right to exercbe reserved water
rights, by providing the follow'_ng;
(1) A method for establishing the
amount, nature, period, and place of use
of reserved waters. That method shall be
based inx>n the principle of a just and
equitable dtstrtbutlon of water among
these entitled to the beneficial use
thereof and may Include the order of
tribal priorities on the use of water
withtn the r^ervatlon.
(U) AH procedures shaH perm .it any
p erson who claim s a rlgnt ta tiia
t o prese.-.r n
claim by application
any pertinent evidence in support
thereof. All iMues wiU be heard by an
impartial administrative official or body
duly constituted by tne tribe. A written
decision on such application v. ill be ren-
dered within a rca-onabl tkne and rea-
sons shall be gl'.'en for each decision.
(lil> Notice of hearings on all appU-
catlorj shall be given In a reasonable
manner such as to aftord Interested per-
sons the opportunity to support or con-
t^t any claimed rights.
(Iv) A complete record of r.U applica-
tions, actions taken thereon, and rny
permits Issued shrJl te m.iintalr.ed by
the tribe and shall be open for public in-
spection on the re!erv:>tlon.
(2) Tlje code nfforcis agsrleved per-
sons the opportunity to see'i Judicial re-
view of Bdminlstrative determinations.,
(3) The tribe nussesses the capacity
to administer the co^
C 4) ihiCo;lai7 7tg»t^d to admlnlstra)
tlOQ and enforcement of reserved watet
rights as defined In this Part.
(5) The code does not seek to regulate
rights to the use of water granted or
created by federal statute to purchasers
of land within on Irrigation project lo-
cated within any Indian reservation and
adnilnistered by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs pursuant to 25 CFR 191-203. The
code recognizes the continued existence
ot such rights with the same priorities
(relative to the reserved water rights
regulated by the code) that those rights
would have had absent enactment of the
code.
(6) The code Is subject to pertinent
acts of Congress and to binding Judicial
decisions concerning reserved v^ater
rights.
(7) Ame.ndments to the code require
approval by the Secretary.
§260.1 Co-Im «;i1, in.lM.l.i.il x.u.r
prrnwis.
(a) At the option of the tribe, tha code
may adopt an Individual permit system
auf-'-.orizing the diversion and use of
water on a use-by-use basis. Where a
permit .system Is utilized:
(1) Permits may state the amount
and periods of use In terms of diversion
and/or consumptive use, specify by de-
scription the tract where the use Is to
.occur, and the natiu-e of the use.
(2) Permltsmay be Usued for exi.'iting
and potential uses Includ'jig storage.
(3) A time period may be set for exer-
cise of each potential use upon which a
permit Is Issued, and changes In time.
place and nature of use may be per-
.-nltted. *
(4) A permit may be Is.'sued for each
potential use established by reservation
land .and water use Inventories.
(5) Extensions of time for exercise of
the rlg'nt acquired In such permit may
be given upon good cause shown.
(6) All permits may be subject to such
reasonable conditions as the tribal gov-
erning body or Its designated adminis-
trative ofSclaU or body shall determine
to be necessary to carry out the purpose
■ of the code.
(7) Procedures may be employed for
enforcement or permits and cancellation
of a permit In the event of substantial
violation of Its conditions.
(8> Temporary use permiu may bo
E-'anted for limited pericds pending ac-
tion upon application for rv rcsuljr wa-
ter permit.
permit5_5iiaJlJ>e submitted to^HlHIsiicuir-
InftnaenT^of thc^£i»tuji_grj3di.:in Af-
f3iCiagency having jun.-.diction over the
rrycrvativ^n for his approval. S::ch other
documents or mate^i.^l as r.re pertinent
l« the permit or necessary to eno.ble him
properly to revie?,- ih- pcnnit i'.'-i'd also
be submitted to the svperinter.^lent. Tlie
superintendent, after review tiiercof.
shall. v.'Uhln 30 days, apprce the pe.--
RECISTER, VOL 1?, NO.
556
PROPOSED RULES
mit, approve the permit on conditiOL.
that XBOdifications be made thereto, or
disapprove the permit. If the permit Is
approved with modifications or disap*
proved, tha superintendent shall return
the permit ta the goveniing body of the
tribe or it» designated administrative
ofiScial or body together with a statement
of the modiflcatkais needed for ap-
proval or the reasons for disapproval.
When approved by the superintendent,
the permit granted by the governing
body of the tribe or its designated ad-
ministrative o£Bcial or body shall be a
federal permit and be enforced as if it
had been issued by iiie Secretary. PaD-
ure to act on the permit within 30 days
of receipt by the superintendent shall
tonstitute approvaL «
<c) The tribal governing body majjal.
Its discretio n call upon tlje field offices
■CStibilshed in" 111 DM 13.5 of the De-
partment of the- Interior ManuaL for arr
Indian Affairs Administrative Law Judge
to assist the tribe in the conduct of any
admin istratlve hearing it may conduct
with respect to applications for water
permits under its w.ater code. The re-
qxiest- shall be- addressed to the Chief
Adniinistrative- Law Judge, OEBce of
Hearings and Appeals, UjS. Department,
of the Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard.
Arlingtcn. Virginia 22203. Upon receipt
CI the request, an Indian Affairs Admin-
istrative Law Judge capable of conduct^
tig administrative vrater hearings shalL
be assigned to bold hearings and issue-
findings of fact and concloTrons of law to
assist the- tribe in particular hearings at
the Ume and place-selected by the tribe.
Sorti hearings shall be- conducted^ pur-
suant to 111 DM 13 and 211 DM 13.7 of
the Department of the Interior Manual,
(d) The code inay, in addition to the
rs^TJlrements tn Part 260.3(b); contain
any other lawful provision.
S260.S
(a> If a trli»e' falls to enact an ap>
proved water code for its reservation and
the Secretarr fJuds that such a code Is
necessary tc pitjcu e and protect the
reserved water righU of the Indians, the
Secretary shall notify the tribe in writ-
ing of SQcxi need and offer assistance in
the preparation of an acceptable water
code. If such tribe notifies tlie Secretary
that it electa not to enact a water code
or if the tribe doea :not respond witliln
60 days from, the date of the request, the
Secretary may prepare and publish a
Trater code for such reservation. The
water code shaU cover at least the areas
set forth in Part 260.3(b) above, and
shall otherwise comply fully wlU> these
reculatlons.
'b) In this code, the Secretary may
act on behalf of the trilje In the Issuance
of permits and the regulation of the re-
served water rights of the reservation.
(c> When said water code has been
completed, it shall be submitted to the
Eoveming body of the tribe of the res-
ervation for its review Sind comment
thereon and to make revisions thereto,
following which the water code shall be
enforced by the Secretary as to the res-
ervation, covered by Euch code.
(dl The code mar be amended by the
Secretary from time-to-time subject to
rights under existing permits after sub-
mitting such amendments to the govern-
ing body of the tribe for its approval.
Provided, however. That any amend-
ment shall become eCective if the tribe
neither approves nor dis;ipproves the
amendment within 60 days.
(e) The tribe may replace such a code
with one adopted by it at any time, or
it may amend the code, with approval of
the Secretary.
5 260.6 App«at».
Where the provisions of !$ 260.4 and
260.5 have been utilized, appeals from the
superintendent's approval of the permit
or other determinations of the superin-
tendant or other Department officials
concerning any person's right to the use
of water shall be within the jurisdiction
of the Board of Indian Appeals in the
OflElce of Hearings and Appeals.^ Office of
the Seeretarr. Department 'of the Inte-
rior: A hearing shall be held on the ap-
peal by tiieBoard at which the tribe-and
tlie appealing party may appear and
present- evidence and argument. When
practic3hlet_thi3 hearing shall -be held
on or near the resei-vation. A determina-
tion by the Beard of Indian Appeals shall
be final and there shall be no f urtlier ad-
ministrative remedy available.
ItotedrMareiiT. 1977.
- - Cecil D. Axwtvs,.
- - . Secretary of- iTTterierr,
|FR D«fc77-7i8«-Fi:ed 3-ld-77;8:4o am)
557
NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
SUSAN ARKEKETA,
OlociCnek
LEONARD BEARKING
EDWARD BENTON (BANA1|
ALLAN |. CALDWELL
CHESTER 1. EAGLEMAN
Board of Directors
LUCILLE ECHOHAWK
Pownef
LLOYD ELM. SR
Ononrfago (Inrrdo
BONNIE HERNANDEZ
PATRICIA LOCKE
LANCE LUIAN
lULlANE A. MONETTE
GARY PRETTY PAINT
DR. RICK ST GERMAINE
HERSCHEL "ACE" SAHMAUNT
DOROTHY SMALL
15 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
IVY TOWER BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS. MN 56403
PHONE 612 333 5341
ANDREW P. LAWSON
25 April 1977
Senator James Abourezk
Chairman, American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk:
The National Indian Education Association, with the concurrence of
the Education Committees of the National Tribal Chairmen's Association
and the National Congress of American Indians, herewith submit to the
AIPRC a statement of comment and recommendations related to Indian educa-
tion.
We respectfully request that you accept and add our comments and
recommendations as an addendum to the Task Force Five Final Report on
Indian Education of the American Indian Policy Review Commission and to
the Final Report under the heading of Social Services.
Sincerely,
Patricia Lock«f^ President
National Indian Education Association
CC: Georgiana Tiger
Lawrence Snake
Ernie Stevens, Executive Director
Enclosure: Statement
PLrmjc
558
STATEMENT
National Indian Education Association (NIEA)
Education Committee: National Congress
of American Indians (NCAI)
Education Committee: National Tribal
Chairmen's Association (NTCA)
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION (p. 281-294)
In previous and separate letters and resolutions from each of the
above organizations, strong objections were voiced regarding the proposed
Indian Education Act of 1977 to establish a National Indian Education Com-
mission and to establish a National Trust Fund for Indian Education. While
we agree that consolidation and coordination of Indian education programs is
desirable, we continue to reject the particular proposed plan for an Indian
Education Act of 1977 as described in Section VII - Proposed Legislation,
of the Task Force V Report.
Any such proposed legislation should have the prior approval and en-
dorsement of the National Tribal Chairmen's Association, the National Congress
of American Indians and the National Indian Education Association.
We will propose alternative recommendations to strengthen Indian
education.
COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDATION THAT A SINGLE FEDERAL AGENCY SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED
FOR INDIAN EDUCATION
We recommend that policies be defined, programs initiated and strengthened
and reforms made within the Education Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
DOI. Should the tribes agree that a new independent agency would strengthen
the Federal -Indian relationship and if, in the future, should such an agency
be created, then education should be a part of, and not separate from, the
whole. Tribes should design programs and structure prior to establishment
of a consolidated Indian Agency.
At present, the National Indian Education Association and the Education
Committees of NCAI and NTCA, cannot respond to AIPRC's recommendation that a
single federal agency be created for Indian education because we have not been
made aware of the structure, functions and authority of such an agency as it
pertains to Indian education. It is our concern that such an agency would
hav'e^to insure protection of the Indian Federal Trust Relationship.
559
COMMENTS ON THE NEED FOR CONSISTENCY IN TERMINOLOGY AND USAGE THROUGHOUT
THE SECTION ON EDUCATION (pps. 8-76 through 8-130)
Throughout the report there should be a consistent focus toward the
education of Indians as benefitting members of tribes as controlled and
determined by tribes. Much of the existing terminology vaguely refers to
Indian "people", and "Indian" and "community" control.. This is inconsistent
with AIPRC recommendations relating to the tribal control of education and
that education is clearly a jurisdictional right of the tribes. We strongly
recommend that all references to " community ", " local " and " Indian " control
be deleted and that tribes or tribal control be inserted.
In the following section, issues or problems will be discussed briefly
and recommendations made pertinent to the issues.
ISSUE: Need for National Indian Education Councils (BIA) to Set Policies
and Priorities
Indian education policy is not now defined. There is ambiguity and
vagueness in defining the "special educational needs" of Indian children
in the context of the various areas of Indian education. The Office of
Education-BIA does not have an institutionalized system to provide advice
relating to these educational policy areas. There are many qualified Indian
educators knowledgeable in specialized fields that can give advice to the
BIA relating to policy issues and program planning so that Indian education
could be more responsive to tribal needs. The Education Office within the
Bureau of Indian Affairs must heed the advice of a formalized body of Indian"
educators. NIEA, NTCA and NCAI have repeatedly recommended by policy papers
and resolutions that the BIA Education must establish an All Indian Council
to set policy and give expert advice on programs. Such a Council should
also provide appropriate advice to education related functions of BIA Em-
ployment Assistance Office and continuing education functions of the BIA's
Division of Law and Order in order to support the training needs of law
enforcement related services.
93-440 O - 78
560
RECOMMENDATION
There must be established nine councils on Indian Education within
the BIA to develop comprehensive policy and program planning in various fields
of Indian education and specifically in the following areas:
1. Council on Early Childhood Education
2. Council on Elementary and Secondary Education
3. Council on Postsecondary Education (to include vocational,
career, and adult education)
4. Council on Education and the Media (to include library programs]
5. Council on Special Education (to include handicapped, learning
disabled, and gifted and talented)
6. Council on School and Plant Facilities/Operation
7. Council on Research and Development (to include development
of measurement, instrumentation and accreditation)
8. Council on Teacher Training (to include the training of
administrators)
9. Council on Bilingual and Multilingual Education (to include
curriculum development)
Council Representation : There shall be three American Indians on each
Commission. Representatives shall be recommended by the tribes and selected
according to depth of knowledge in each field. After three years. Council
will be composed of a total of nine members.
Terms of Service : The Council appointees shall serve 2 to 3 terms in
order that there will be a revolving cycle of new representatives.
Functions of Councils : The Councils shall establish policy, program
planning, and evaluation of Indian Education programs. They shall develop a
priority of goals annually; they shall propose long-range budget estimates
for Indian Education in the particular fields.
Each Council shall develop guidelines based on tribal recommendations
relative to the licensing and certification of educational personnel.
Each Council shall develop curricular alternatives in the particular
fields. Such policies shall be reflected in the BIA Manual.
561
ISSUE: Need for Five Indian Education Service Centers
A majority of the tribes are geographically isolated and are poor.
Tribal Divisions of Education and education committees are thus denied access
to available educational curricular and research materials nor do they re-
ceive adequate training and technical assistance. Tribes need these services
of program planning assistance. They need to have expert advice in the band
analysis planning procedure related to budgetary priorities, in curricula
development, proposal writing and evaluation of programs. They need to
know about exemplary Indian education programs that may be adapted and re-
plicated. All of this assistance should be more geographically accessible.
RECOMMENDATION
There shall be established by the BIA five Indian Education Service
Centers. The function of the Service Centers shall be to provide:
1. Data bank collection and retrieval and linkage
and dissemination functions.
2. Technical assistance including training programs.
3. Research and development (Knowledge production and utilization).
Such Service Centers shall be located in Anchorage, Alaska; San Francisco,
California; Denver, Colorado; Chicago, Illinois; and Washington, D. C. (to
coincide with communications systems sites as proposed in Chapter C: Federal
Administration, page 46).
The Service Centers shall be placed under the authority of the BIA-DOI
but such line authority does not preclude future placement and structuring
within an independent and comprehensive Agency on Indian Affairs.
Staffing for the five Education Service Centers shall be selected
according to standards to be developed for the Indian Career Services' Divi-
sion of Recruitment and Training that would develop avenues for the recruit-
ment of qualified Indians as mandated by Section 12 of the Indian Reorganiza-
tion Act.
The five Service Centers shall be responsible for cooperating with and
assisting tribal councils and tribal Divisions or Departments of Education
that have comprehensive and coordinative management of tribal education
programs. ^
562
The nine National Indian Education Councils shall meet regularly at the
five Service Centers in order to provide additional technical assistance and
research information
ISSUE: Need for an Indian Career Service
A policy that Indians are to receive "absolute employment preference"
was first enunciated in 1882. This policy has been reaffirmed in the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934, in a 1946 solicitor general's opinion, and in a
presidential policy statement in 1970. Yet in the BIA, Indians predominantly
occupy low level positions and non-Indians disproportionately occupy high
policy making posts. Indians constitute fully 84.6% of BIA employees in the
four lowest G.S. brackets, but only 16.8% of the employees at G.S. levels 14
and above. These overall figures are similarly reflected in the BIA educa-
tional systems. Past attempts at providing inservice education training to
non-Indians has been discouraging. The present Civil Service system perpe-
tuates the situation where non-Indians are unsuccessfully teaching our Indian
children and administering education programs.
RECOMMENDATION
The Congress should enact legislation establishing an Indian Career
Service, independent of the Civil Service, throughout federal Indian programs
now operated by the various Offices and Agencies including the Office of India
Education OE-DHEW and the Indian Public Health Service and as authorized by
Section 12 of the Indian Reorganization Act.
ISSUE: Inadequate Support for Tri bally Chartered Colleges
At present, the financing of tribal ly chartered colleges serving members
of federally recognized tribes is inequitable and insufficient. Only three
tribally chartered colleges, the Navajo Community College, Rosebud's Sinte
Gleska and Pine Ridge's Lakota College, are receiving BIA support. There is
no comprehensive financing plan to provide basic support for the 20 tribes
563
now operating colleges: Rosebud Sioux, Pine Ridge Sioux, Sisseton-Wahpeton
Sioux, Cheyenne River Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, Santee Sioux, Omaha,
Winnebago, Turtle Mountain Chippewa, Lummi , Blackfeet, Navajo, Tanana Chiefs,
Inupiat, Northern Cheyenne, Devil's Lake Sioux, Hualapai-Havasupai, Keweenaw
Bay Chippewa and Fort Berthold (Hidatsa, Mandan and Arikara). There is a
lack of fiscal projections for requests for appropriations for next year and
the next five years for these tribes' postsecondary education college programs.
The tribal ly chartered colleges also need ongoing technical assistance after
they are established.
Flaming Rainbow at Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the college serving the Cherokee,
is also lacking BIA operational support. It is at present not tribally
chartered, but its student body is 60% Cherokee. Flaming Rainbow and Inupiat
are four-year institutions.
The BIA also has the responsibility to assist in the developmental
aspects of tribal postsecondary programs. The following tribes are currently
planning tribally chartered colleges: The Mississippi Band of Choctaw; the
Crow; the Fort Belknap; the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux; and the White
Mountain Apache.
RECOMMENDATION
Legislation must be enacted to provide funding for the planning and
development of, and for basic operational support to the tribes for their *
tribally chartered colleges. Support must be provided for tribes who wish
to establish four year and graduate institutions. The funding process must
not circumvent the tribal governments but must be consistent with P.L. 93-638.
ISSUE: Conflicting Education Decision Makers - Need for Tribal Education Divisioi
All tribes do not now have full authority in fiscal matters and other
policy decisions regarding education programs for their tribal members. These
authorities are frequently assumed by individuals and organizations not re-
sponsible to the elected tribal governments. The result of this assumption of
authority has often been fiscal and decision-making circumvention of the tribal
governments. Another result has been a proliferation of education committees.
564
boards and organizations that frequently have overlapping and confusing
programs and priorities without true attention to tribal priorities.
RECOMMENDATION
In order to ensure tribal self-determination and decision-making in
all aspects of education, it is recommended that support be given to tribes
that wish to initiate tribal divisions or departments of education. Tribal
divisions of education would have the purpose of coordinating and consolidating
all education programs within the jurisdiction of the tribe, including early
childhood, elementary, secondary, postsecondary scholarship programs and career
education programs such as the BIA Employment Assistance Program. Such pro-
grams as Title I, Title IV, Title VII, JOM, tribal colleges, contract schools,
etc., could then be coordinated by the Tribal Division of Education in order to
avoid overlap and duplication of programs and to avoid fiscal decision-making
circumvention of the tribal authority. Parental involvement would continue to
be stressed but would be within the context of tribal control and authority.
ISSUE: Need for Preparatory Academies
Because of inadequate preparation, many Indian students are not suc-
cessful in college. Attrition rates between the first and second year of
college are above 50%. In addition, Indian students have difficulty in
entering graduate programs because of a lack of specialized academic skills.
There is a critical need for both pre-college and graduate preparatory pro-
grams that would adequately prepare Indian students for success in areas of
study that are critical to tribal needs. Indian professionals are scarce
in the areas of medicine, law, natural resources, etc.
RECOMMENDATION
There must be established at least five regional American Indian
Preparatory Academies of high quality to meet the needs of students preparing
to enter college and special graduate programs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
should give this charge to the appropriate National Indian Education Councils
565
to develop a workable plan. The BIA should then request adequate appropriations
from the Congress to support such Academies.
ISSUE: Needs for Indian Special Education
Indian children that are handicapped, learning disabled and gifted and
talented are the most educationally neglected of all children. These children
are miseducated and undereducated because the BIA, the Office of Education,
and state education agencies have failed to provide appropriate programs for
the Indian child with special education needs. These children have not been
identified adequately or adequately served. The responsible agencies have
not requested adequate amounts to serve these children, nor have they planned
for quality educational services.
RECOMMENDATION
The BIA and the Office of Education-DHEW must request sufficient monies
in order to provide appropriate programs for the Indian handicapped and learning
disabled. Monies must also be requested and provided for the development of
appropriate instrumentation to identify Indian gifted and talented children
and to provide culturally appropriate programs for these children.
ISSUE: Bilingual and Multilingual Education Needs of Indians
Indian children speak approximately 252 languages. These children have
been denied the right to obtain an education equal to the education afforded
English-speaking children.
The BIA's and OE's insistence in perpetuating the use of a monolingual
(English) educational system cannot be sustained. Through the emphasis on
existing monolingual curricula and the utilization of predominantely English
teachers, school systems promote a single-minded proficiency in English that
would replace any "foreign" language. Indians do not receive adequate monies
from the Bilingual Education Acts of 1968 and 1974.
566
RECOMMENDATION
Title VII - The Bilingual Education Act should be amended to provide
for the bilingual and bicultural education needs of American Indian children
who speak 252 different languages. Tribes should be allowed to decide if
curricula should be in both the tribal language and in the English language.
Tribes, tribal education divisions and the family should also decide if
teachers should acquire competencies in the tribal language before attempting
to teach their children. Curriculum in Indian languages would be a priority
of the Council on Indian Bilingual and Multilingual education.
567
NATIONAL TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S
ASSOCIATION
Suite 207 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006
202 - 343-9484
April 20, 1977
The Honorable James Abourezk
Chairman, American Indian
Policy Review Commission
2nd & D Streets, S.W.
Boom 3158
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Abourezk:
Enclosed for review and consideration by the American
Indian Policy Review Commission is a Statement to the Board of
Directors of the National Tribal Chairmen's Association by a
Special Committee of the Board delegated to review the work. of
the Commission. We thank the Commission for affording us the
opportunity of commenting.
Sincerely yours.
WY/kb
cc: NTCA Board of Directors
Enclosure
William Youpe(
Executive Director
568
NTCA SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR REVIE^V
OF TOE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY
REVIEW COMMISSION:
STATEMENT ON TOE COMMISSION'S
FINAL REPOirr
APRIL 20, 3977
On March 23, 1977, the American Indian Policy Review
Commission submitted its Tentative Final Report to tlie Indian tri'oos
and people of the United Slates solicitin<; their comments on a
massive volume of material whicli we must assume Irom its authors'
intent will bear a profound impact on the Indian experience and the
tribal future. We find the Report as a whole stronj;ly st.'ites an
Indian perspective of Indian history and nspirations. NTCA from the
beginning has questioned many of the promises of the Commission
including its necessity, its manner of s(?curing representation of
the Indian community in its proce;;scs, and an avov'(?d oi'ientation
toward change through the legislative process. We should state at
the outset of this paper that there is much in the Final Report -.vith
which we must agree, perhaps a majority of the Report is aligned with
what we believe to be tribal consensus on familiar issues or at
least logical extensions of accepted views.
We cannot and do not, however, offer a blanket endorsement
of the Report, There is a certain exuberance in its narrative and
recommendations from which we derive skepticism only because we
detect at some points a discrepancy betv/een what is possible and
what is desirable. Some within NTCA will discover a lack of wisdom
and toughmindedness in Commission statements with which they agree
in principle.
569
This Committee finds it impossible and unwise to attempt
a full scale critique of the Report. There are simply too many
issues that will be resolved, even within the Indian community, only
after long debate and actual experience. We do know that we cannot
logically respond, as the Commission has requested, by chocking tlic
appropriate space on a preprinted form to indicate whether the report
is "Excellent," "Good," "Poor," nor would this contribute significantly
to the historical weight of tlie Report.
This Committee thus suggests that NTCA resolve firmly to
reserve to itself the right to comment specifically and in full a.s
each recommendation of the Commission is brought before Congress.
Not only docs this approach accord with tlic realities of the American
political process but we believe it better allov/s ior evolution and
development of the issues and principles governing Indian affairs.
While we have adopted a policy herein of reserving comment
on specific issues, for the most part, we recognize certain funda-
mental tenets of Indian law which underlie the whole of our relation-
ship to the United States and which are basically unalterable and not
evolving because they are based on historic fact. It is the intent
of the Committee in this Statement to discuss some of these basic
concepts not in the context of criticism of the Commission but as an
expression of our views of the thrust of the law and of the most pro-
ductive restructuring of the emphasis of Indian affairs.
670
I. The Purpose of an Indian Policy
At a time when there Is growing confusion among many
groups of American citizens and in state capitals concerning the meaning
of tribal existence there Is a need for restatement and publication of
a purpose to the conduct of federal Indian affairs. Without some sense
of purpose there is no vitality to tlie Commission's analysis of existing
law or recommendations as to how the policy should best be carried out.
That purpose, we believe, lies in a basic human right of
the individual to seek fulfillment of his maximum potential in the
political, social, and cultural setting of his choice.— The individvial
derives his identity from his culture and, for the Indian, this
culture has been and continues to bo defined by the realities of the
tribe, tribal membership, and the tri'jal homeland and history. Thus,
as a crucial aspect of their own liuman rights. Indian people who cr.oose
to live in the tribal context firmly believe in and seek to secure the
existence of tlieir tribes into perpetuity as self-governing political
entities. This is a goal lully contemplated in past and present Indiaii
policy. As recently as 1975, in the Indian Self-Determinat ion Act, Con-
gress declared "its commitment to the maintenance of the Federal Govorn-
ment's unique and continuing relationship with and responsibility to the
Indian people through the establishment of a meaningful Indian self-
detei'mination policy . . , ," 25 U.S.C.A. 450a(b). The very straight-
forward congressional declaration apparently was based in large measure
upon its finding of the fundamental Indian concerns we are raising
here — that "the Indian people will never surrender their desire to
1/ Article 1 of the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights provides that:
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By
virtue of that right they freely determine their poli-
tical status and freely pursue their economic, social
and cultural development.
571
control their relationships both among themselves and with non-
Indian governments, organizations, and persons." 2^' § 450(a)(2),
Indian tribes possess the moral right to endure and they shall do
so as self-determining peoples.
Beyond the Indian's own purpose, however, we perceive in
the maintenance of Indian tribes and culture a furtherance of the
precepts of Americanism. This country has believed that it draws
strength as a nation from the diversity of its included cultures,
from its tolerance of divergent societies, and from its commitment
to the protection of legitimate minority aspirations. Likewise, there
is national strength in tlie fulfillment of national commitment to
other nations of the world and to its own citizens. On the conti'ary,
wo believe tlie United Stales in r.odern times stands for the princi-.. .>
that purposeful destruction of societies and cultures is immoral and
9/
violative of human rights. —
The Indian right to survive as Indian and the United States'
commitment to certain moral principles governing the fabric and
direction of national life must establish the underlying purpose of
any federal Indian policy.
II, The Legal Basis of Tribal Existence and Authority
While all people possess the inherent moral right to main-
tain and develop their native cultures and social, political organiza-
tion, no people in American history has ever presented that issue in
2/ See e.g. , The international Genocide Convention of Decem.ber 9, 1948,
would outlaw the purposeful destruction of a national, racial, or
religious group as such. U.N, Treaties No. 1021, p. 277, 45 Am. J.
Int'l Law 1951 Supp. 7,
572
the federal context and been accorded that right as a matter of
constitutional, international, and statutory law. Indian tribes
are unique in the American legal system. It must not be forgotten
that before the age of European discovery Indian Tribes enjoyed com-
plete mastery of the continent, governing their land and people as
fully sovereign, self-determining polities. They were independent
nations possessed of unlimited powers of self-government controlling
both their external and internal relations. Many tribes, such as those
of the Iroquois Confederation, achieved levels of sophistication in poli-
tical organization still regarded as models of effective government.
In the post Revolutionary period, the reality of the day
dictated that the uniqueness of Indian tribes Ije recognized in the
formation of the new federal system. Thus, the Constitution cxpresR.l.v
recognizes Indian tribes and identifies them as political entities
separate from the states and foreign nations -- to be dealt with as
tribes. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Constitution itself suggests that
Indian tribes were self-governing in fact.
The United States treated with Indian tribes on the same
basis as it did with the powers of Europe. Holden v. Joy . 84 U.S.
(17 Wall.) 211, 242-43 (1872). Treaty making is in fact an exercise
of mutual undertakings between co-equal sovereigns and the formulation
of treaties with Indian tribes a recognition by the United States of
their sovereign nature and capacicy. The treaties entered into by
the United States constitute permanent agreements establishing
573
permanent relationships. In them the United States agreed to the
imposition of limitations on its own sovereignty and both parties
have recognized the mutuality of their agreements through the years.
It should be noted that in tlio colonial and post Revolutionary War
era the United States often sought and received the assistance of
the tribes and, in concluding treaties Of peace, tliat the United
States stood as much in the need of peace as did the tribes.
Indian triljes and people paid dearly in lives, land and
property as tlieir part of the agreements. The United States' fore-
most payment was the promise that the Indian would have his tribe
and his remaining land forever. The uncompromised duration of the
agreement formed tlio basis of triljal consent. Indian tribes, tlie
courts, and the United States cannot regard tliose treaties as mere
relics for the arcliivist. The assertion of treaty riglits calls foi"
the fulfillment of living agreements reached long ago between nations.
This view is part of American law.
The relationship of Indian tribes to the United States was
first considered comprehensively by the Supreme Court in 1832, and the
analysis of Chief Justice John Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S.
(6 Pet.) 515 (1832) has never been repudiated. Worcester remains today
as the foundation of the existence of Indian tribes and the source of
their vitality. In Worcester , the Court recognized that prior to the
European discovery of America Indians constituted a "distinct people,
divided into separate nations, independent of each other and of the
574
rest of the world, having institutions of their own, and governing
themselves by their own laws." Ld. at 542. Discovery by various
European powers did not annul the pre-existing rights of these nations,
including their property and political rights. Jd^. at 543. As a
matter of international agreement between European sovereigns, the
recognized principles of war, confjuest, and discovery conferred
certain rights on the American continent, but only between those
nations which agreed to them. As to land, the rights of discovery
gave only an exclusive right to purchase from the possessor. M. at
543-44. Indian nations retained their sovereign discretion to cede
or not to cede their rights in land. Id^. at 544.
Great Britain, from whom the obligations and understandings
of the United States were derived, conferred no power of conquest
upon their colonies except the power to make defensive war for just
cause. Tlie British colonies thus had no power to destroy independent
nations, and, during their tenure, they did not in fact attempt to
interfere with Indian self-government. ld_. at 547. Tribes willMigly
accepted from various European nations necessary supplies and i.ro-
tection against invasion so long as their actual independence was
untouched and their right to self-government was acknowledged. Id .
at 547.
The United States, following the Revolution and under the
Constitution, regarded the Indian nations, as had the British, as:
distinct, independent political communities
retaining their original natural rights, as
the undisputed possessors of the soil from
time immemorial, with the single exception
of that im.posed by irresistablo power . . .
The Constitution, by declaring treaties al-
575
ready made, as well as those to be made, to
be the supreme law of the land, has adopted
and sanctioned the previous treaties with the
Indian nations, and consequently admits their
rank among those powers who are capable of
mJ^lting treaties ....
The very fact of repeated treaties with _
them recognizes [their title to self-govern-
ment]; and the settled doctrine of the law of
nations is that a power does not surrender its
independence -- its right to self-government,
by associating with a stronger and taking its
protection.
Id . at 559, 561. In Worcester , the Court thus held the Cherokees
to be a nation, a distinct community occupying its own territory
in which the laws of Georgia had no effect. The inherent right
of self-government of America's Indian tribes identified and pre-
served in Worcester has never been surrendered by the tribes or
extinguished by the United States,
A. The Power of Consent
As political entities retaining inherent sovereign powers
Indian tribes possess the basic power of consent, i.e., tlie power to
give or to withhold their consent to actions affecting them. The
consent power, we believe, is reserved to the tribes in much the
same way as the states reserve aspects of their sovereignty under
the Constitution. U.S. Const., amend, x. The tribal power of
consent is recognized in specific provisions such as the consent
requirement for state assumption of jurisdiction in 25 U.S.C. §§
1321(a), 1322(a). There is clear reservation of tribal power of
93-440 O - 78 - 38
576
consent and self-government in the tribal government reorganizations
under the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 476 et se^. (1970).
"The laws of an Indian tribe owe their force to the will_^of the members
of the tribe," Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 122 (U.N. Mex.
ed.), and the constitutions of many tribes expressly provide that powers
not delegated to the tribe are reserved to the people. The I.R.A.
itself constitutes congressional recognition of the power of consent
retained by Indian people in matters of their self-governing authority.
See 25 U.S.C. § 476.
The power of consent forms the historical basis for the
special legal relationship between Indian tribes and the United St?.t°i3.
It was the essence of the treaty-making process and of the many
agreements reduced to statutory form after 1871. Indian tribes,
possessed of vast land, mineral, and water resources in preceding
centuries consented to the cession of their land and certain authority
but this was done in a context of contract, not of gift, for mutual
considerations including the obligations of the United States.
ivjbss did not consent to surrender their rights of self-government
and the United States explicitly and implicitly obligated itself
to secure this right to the tribes with whom it dealt. Thus, it is
the position of this Committee that the special relationship between
Indian tribes and the federal government and the legal obligations of
the latter with regard to that relationship are founded in specific
agreements and statutory commitments.
577
III. Tribal Government
The relationship between the United States and the Indian
tribes, founded in treaty and agreement, is essentially political in
origin and exists between governmental entities. The continued
existence of the relationship and its manifest mutual obligations
thus implies the necessity of tribal governments. The Supreme Court
has recently cited the principle that tribal organization is essential
to the federal/Indian relationship;
If the tribal organization of the Shawnee
is preserved intact, and recognized by the
political department of t)io government as
existing, then they are a 'people distinct
from others,' capable of making treaties,
separated from the iurisdiction of Kansas,
and to be governed exclusively by the Govern-
ment of tlie Union, If under the control of
Congress, from necessity there can be no
divided authority.
McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona , 411 U.S. 164, 169
(1973), quoting The Kansas Indians . 5 Wall. 737 (1867). Likewise,
the Court long ago held that Indian tribes
. . . were and always have been regarded as
having a semi-independent position w hen they
preserved their tribal relations ; . . .
McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona , supra , quoting United
States V. Kagama. 118 U.S. at 381-82 (18G6) (emphasis added).
It is the tribe to which the U.S. obligation is owed; there
is no general special legal relationship with individual Indians
except insofar as the individual has "maintained his tribal relations.'
Moreover the determination of who is to be considered a tribal member
578
has been treated almost exclusively as a political function of the
tribe. Thus the individual Indian's special relationship to the
United States is by reason of his own legal/political affiliation with
a tribe which possesses a recognized political relationship with the
federal government. There is no unique obligation to Indians on the
basis of racial classification. See Morton .v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535,
554, n. 24, and legal preferences accorded members of federally recog-
nized tribes are not racial discrimination but are political in
nature. Id .
The exchanges of consent and commitments between tribal
and federal governments and the consequent political/legal relation-
ship which survives to the present day and continues to develop and
grow is nevertheless grounded in specific historical circumstances
an'^ ar;rec!nents . There were specific entrustmcnts of land and
resources, specific promises and reservations made. These are
to be construed broadly, as the Indians would have understood them
when they bargained with the United States; but the relationship does
not arise from an abstract duty to protect the Indian people. It is,
however, the intent of Indian people to hold the United States to.
its contracts.
We conclude from the foregoing that the concept of federal
recognition is crucial to an understanding of the federal/Indian
relationship and to its development. It is a realistic adjunct of
sovereignty for the sovereign to recognize those entities with which
it has dealt politically in the past and with which it will deal in
the future. It is our opinion that the federal recognition doctrine
is still vital to Indian tribes because it secures the essential
579
political nature of our relationship to the federal government which
was first established in the Constitution. We would object to any
recommendation of the Commission that subverts the sound political/
legal basis of the relationship between Indian tribes and the federal
government and thereby diminishes tribal government.
IV, The Trust Relationship
We have purposely used the concept of trust sparingly in
this Statement because it is of such importance to Indian people that
it should not be used loosely or arbitrarily. Much of tlie relat ionsiiip
between Indian tribes and the United States is founded in the
legal concept of trust. Indian tribal and individual assets
have been placed and accepted in trust by the United States for tlioii-
beneficial owners. The trust status of Indian law and property impose
upon the United States exacting duties of fiduciary care. Those
duties are broad and we would not attempt liere to define them pre-
cisely. Nevertheless, we do not believe the trust authorizes general
domination and control by the federal government over the full range .
of tribal affairs or the daily lives of Indian people. On these
principles, we believe we are substantially in accord with tl^e
Commission.
V. Specific Issues
A. Treaties
The Commission recommends that Congress enact legislation
directing federal agencies to administer the trust responsibility in
accord with, inter alia , the following principle:
580
The United States shall not abrogate or m any
way infringe any treaty rights, or non-treaty
rights which are protected by the trust respon-
sibility, v.-ithout first seeking to obtain the
consent of the affected Indian or Indians, Such
rights shall not bo abrogated or infringed with-
out such consent except under extraordinary cir-
cumstances where a compelling national interest
requires otl1el•^visc . With or without Indian con-
sent, such rights shall not be abrogated or in-
fringed in any way except pursuant to a Congress-
ional act which identifies the specific affected
Indian rights and which states tnat it is the
intent of Congress to abrogate or infringe such
rights.
We believe this to be one of the most fundamental principles upo:i
which Indian affairs should be structured in the future and urge
that it be incorporated into legislation and accorded high priority
in this Congress.
B, Tribal Exercise of Jurisdiction
This committee is fully aware of the passions stirred by
the issue of tribal jurisdiction. We believe the issue should be
controlled by the principles of inherent sovereignty, flexibility
and cooperation. The decision of the Ninth Circuit in Oliphant v.
Schlie . 544 F.2d 1007 (197C), sets forth a sound analysis of the
nature of tribal authority.
In general, problems of conflicting and often chaotic patterns
of jurisdiction involving tribal, federal, state, and local govern-
ments must be resolved in accord with the status and needs of indi-
vidual Indian tribes. The law must recognize and restore the inherent
jurisdictional authority of all tribes but must, at the same time,
recognize the varying resources, land base characteristics, population
sizes, choices concerning the scope of autonomy to be exercised, and
581
the cultures of the individual ti'ibes. In particular we support the
well-planned, well-funded retrocession to the tribes and federal
government of all P.L. 280 jurisdiction on the basis of local tribal
option.
Members of this Coinmittoe are firm believers in the
basic capacity of tribal ciovornments to administer due process of
law to members and non-members alike. There is yet much work to
be done in this regard, however, and federal assistance is required.
Perhaps the most pressing need is for tribal development or redesign
of their criminal and civil codes. There is a continuing need to
upgrade the training of tribal judges. Tribal appellate courts are
often inadequate or non-existent. There is a pressing need to extend
full faith and credit to the orders and judgments of tribal courts.
Furthermore, looking to the future, there is need for
tribes to make clear to all persons, v/liethcr living on the reserva-
tion or not, the scope of jurisdiction they intend to exercise. The
concept in the law of the United States, spelled out in statute or
ordinance, of implied consent to jurisdiction by reason of entry into
a designated geographic area does not deny due process of law to
persons so consenting.
We suggest, however, with regard to this last point, that
serious consideration be given to the desirability and feasibility
of placing U.S. magistrates on Indian reservations to exercise juris-
diction over tribal non-members.
582
C. Conflicts of Interest
Resolution of the conflict of interest problem porvadinsi
the entire federal administration of Indian affairs is of utmost
importance. Indian tribes must have access to competent, inde-
pendent legal counsel if they are to protect their assets and
rights against incursions l:)y federal, state, and private interests.
We will reserve comment on the many specific proposals directed to
this end by the Commission. We would emphasize, however, that tte
federal government has assumed its obligations as a unified entity
and no federal agency is free to disregard trust or other responsi-
bilities.
D. An Independent Agency
One of the primary tenets of the Commission's Report is
that federal policy should be directed toward creation of an inde-
pendent agency or department to administer Indian affairs. There is
much difference of opinion in Indian country concerning this proposal,
but the Committee believes NTCA should support serious consideration
of the proposal as a long-term goal. We still have serious misgivings
concerning the justification for such an undertaking offered by the
Commission. The proposal suffers on many points from lack of clarity.
Further, it does not appear that a new agency necessarily would solve
basic conflicts of interest.
583
The Committee believes an independent department presents
the potential for more effective delivery of funds to Indian people.
Regionalization and fragmentation of services could be reduced, the
cost of bureaucracy cut. The goal of any reortjanizat ion should he
to deliver the federal dollar nearest the problem with the great esu
possible impact.
Reorganization, whetlier in the BIA context or in a new
context, should also reconceptualize the present Area Office. Such
offices should be transfoj-med into Teclinical Assistance Centers with
the authority and capacity to deliver the highest quality professional
services possible — througli contracts with the private sector if
need be. The channels of political authority should be free to flov,'
directly between the agencies and the Central Office. Tlic Agency
Superintendent should be given more flexibility and more authority to
deliver what individual tribes actually want and need.
E. Congressional Committee Structure
«
The Committee views with alarm the recent trend in Congress
to merge legislative jurisdiction over Indian affairs into a public
lands committee in the House and into two committees in the Senate.
The eventual resolution in the Senate creating a temporary select
committee was welcome, but Indian affairs demands greater expertise.
584
continuity, and security than Congress has now provided. We support
the Commission recommendations calling for creation of permanent
standing or select committees in both houses of Congress or a Joint
Select Committee.
F. Federal Domestic Assistance Programs
Indian tribes must be integrated into federal domestic
assistance delivery systems. The unintended subjection of tribes
to state jurisdiction interferes directly with the exorcise of
trilsal sovereignty and is inconsistent with federal policy recog-
nizing the self-governing status of Indian tribes. Moreover, there
are far too many instances of state administration of pj'ograms for
reservation Indians resulting in inefficient, reduced, and somct ip:es
discriminatory delivery of services. Those tribes which possess the
capability should be granted the option of electing to receive direct
federal funding and to assume administrative control of programs.
CONCLUSION
We have offered the foregoing views out of a deep sense of
our commitment to the soundness of the principles upon which Indian
law and the trust relationship are based. There is also a great need
at this juncture in Indian history to be about our business with
diligence, dedication and compassion for our people.
WENDELL CHINO
BRUCE MILLER TOWNSEND
585
NATIVE AMERICAN CENTER
1214 N. Hudson
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103
Area Code 405 232-2512
«
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MILLIE GIAGO
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
May 2, 1977
ABEL NOAH
Vice-chairman
BETH COKER
Secralary
SUE WILSON
Treasurer
RUSSELL COKER
JOE DUHANT
REV. ROBERT PINEZADDLEBY
EARL PLUMLEY
SYLVIA WALCZAK
REV. DAVE LONG. SR
SUE WILSON
LAWANA BROWN
CORINNE HALFMOON
JORENE COMBS
HICKORY STAR. JR
American Indian Policy Review Commission
Congress of the United States
House Office Building Annex No. 2
2nd and D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Sir:
It is impossible to make conment on these final report.
We waited for the material to be sent under separate cover as
instructed.
We have not received them as of today's date May 2, 1977.
Sincerely, ,-
Millie A. Giago
Executive Director
MAG/gb
586
NATIVE AMERICAN
COALITION OF TULSA
P.O.Box 2646 Tulsa 74102
kCT
819 S. Denver Tulsa Oklahoma
Phone (918) 583-3643
April 20, 1977 ^^C-i> APR y,f> ^^^^
TO: American Indian Policy Review Commission
FROM: Pamela E. Iron, Director
Indian Health Care Resource Center
SUBJECT: Observations and Recommendations on "A Guide to the Final
Report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission"
I. Chapter 5: Legal Status (page 5)
(Historical Overview and Jurisdiction)
Before tribal governments are given the same powers as "local
governments" by the Executive Branch of government, the tribal
government should:
(a) be found to have a fair and democratic constitution which was
passed by a simple majority (50% plus 1) of that tribe;
(b) a tribe must accept any person who is on their tribal role as
a "voting member" of that tribe, and consider membership to
individuals who are at least one-quarter {k) blood quantum
of that tribe regardless of location, head-rite status, or any
limiting factor as a "voting member" of that tribe.
It should be noted that many American Indians are not allowed
to vote because of location or some superficial restriction
and therefore are deneid the right to vote, especially those
Indian people living off the reservation. Therefore, the
tribal government cannot be representative of a majority of
its membership if certain Indian people who are bonafide
descendants of that tribe are denied the right to vote;
(c) tribal officials must be elected by those members included in
section (b) by a simple majority with controls on ballot count-
ing being equal to any other national election, overseen by the
Department of Interior;
(d) other areas which would directly apply to the above recommend-
ations:
1. Chapter 6: Federal Administration p 17. Subject: "Tribal
governments as equal to state governments in the federal
delivery system of federal domestic assistance programs.
587
2. Chapter 7; Economic Development- TaxatlonT the authority
of a tribe to enact a tax on their tribe, (p, 32),
II. Chapter 6: Federal Administration Cp. 19)
The current recommendation of "The Indian Career Service" appointment
system has some merits, however once the employee is appointed, he
should not give up any Civil Service Commission laws protecting him
from political "manuevering" to remove him without due process.
III. Chapter 8: Social Services - Health (p. 35)
We stand in complete agreement with the concept and reality of Indian
centers in urban areas providing health care and social services
(especially via P.L. 94-437, Title V).
IV. Chapter 9: Off-Reservation Indians
We fully support all issues dealing with off-reservation Indians.
However, the urban Indian center who have a non-profit incorporated
status and an Indian Board of Directors should be recognized by the
federal government to contract directly with them for health care
and social services. This view is supported by P.L. 94-437, Title
V, in that congress specifically recognized unmet health care needs
in urban areas containing a large population of Indian people.
BEFORE granting tribes control over urban programs, "The Select
Committee on Indian Affairs should conduct a survey of the forty
major tribes of Oklahoma as to how many programs effecting the
health, education, and welfare of Indians living in Tulsa and
Oklahoma City they have initiated and supported before P.L. 94-437
was passed. The response should be very revealing.
Rep. James R. Jones
Rep. Theodore M. Risenhoover
Sen. Dewey Bartlett *
Sen. Abourezk
588
A GUIDE TO
THE FINAL REPORT
OF THE
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW
COMMISSION
Prepared by:
Native American Rights Fund
Boulder, Colorado
American Indian Law Center
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico
589
March 31, 1977
MMDRflNDUM
To: All Tribes and Indian Organizations
Fran: Native American Ri^ts Fund and Anerican Indian Law Center
Ite: Final Report of the American Indian Policy Review Coitinission
The final report of the American Indian Policy Review Ccmmission was
issxaed to tribes and Indian organizations on March 23, 1977 for their re-
view and oonments. Given the relatively short time for responses to the
Ccmtnission report (all responses are to be submitted to the Conmissicn no
later than f^ril 23, 1977) , the Native American Ri^ts Fund and the Amer^
ican Indian Law Center have prepared a guide to the Connission report to
assist tribes and Indian organizations in the preparation of their res-
ponses to the report of the American Indian Policy Iteview Conmission.
The attached guide is divided into two sections. The first section
contains a sunmary of recamendations contained in each chapter of the
majority report, as well as the recamendations contained in the minority
reporl: - Separate Dissenting Views of Congressman Lloyd ffeeds. Each reQ-
amendation is presented with a designation as to the recomitEnded action
to be taken by each party to the Federal- Indian relationship. Ttie second
section of the guide contains evaliiations of each ch^ter of the Conmis-
sion report prepared by the staffs of the Native American Rights Fund and
the Indian Law Center. Ttiese evaluations do not represent either an en-
dorsement or rejection of Ccrmission recamendations, but rather are in-
tended to highlight issues vAiich each tribe and Indian organization must
evaluate fron their own perspective given the variety of circumstances
imique to each group. In sane instances, the oomnnents addressing certain
chapters of the Camiission report focus upon the cmissicn of issues or
recamendations in a given siiDJect area. In these areas, tribes will need
to evaluate the effect of an issue's amission, and to generate their posi-
tions relative to that issue, so that Congress may be fully informed of
the views of each tribe or Indian organization prior to acting vpon Can-
mission reconmendations .
590
Hie Policy Review Oarinission has held six hearings over the past
five nonths to review the findings and reoomendations contained in the
final report of the Ocmtnission. As a result, the specific wording and
siiDstance of each reccrmsndation represents a consensus VDte of Indian
and non-Indian Comnissioners , and nay vary from the recormendations
contained in Task Poroe reports. Thus, tribes and Indian organizations
nust closely scrutinize all recomnendaticns of the final report to de-
termine the adequacy of each reoomnendation to acconplish its stated
goal, as well as the extent to v*d.ch the reocnmendations represent the
Indian position, and the degree of acceptance the recoimendations may
find among the grov?) evaluating the report.
Ihe thirty days schediiLed for the receipt of responses to the
final report mark the last opportimity for tribes and Indian organiza-
tions to coranent upon the findings and reoonitendations of the American
Indian Policy Review Coimission. Tribal responses are critical to the
quality and credibility of the Ooninission report and the future of
Federal-Indian policy.
591
TAFtTf. OF oo^^l!^j^^ls
Page:
MemDrandum to All Tribes i
Siznnnary of Beocnmendatians 1
Chester 4: Itederal Indian Trust Relations 60
Chapter 5: Tribal Govemitent. 62
Chapter 6: Federal Administration 68
Ch^ter 7: Eooncndc DeveloprEnt 72
Chapter 8: Social Services 78
Ch^ter 9: Off -Reservation Indians 82
Chapter 10: Tentdnated Tribes 85
Chapter 11: Non-Recognized Indians 87
Qiapter 12: Special Circumstances 88
Ch^ter 13: General 93
Minority Report .94
-440 O - 78 - 39
592
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT
ChapL.=^r - Federal-Indian Trust Relations
P.'\-.r. •.nic....dtions:
Action to be taken by
V. -... i...^ out itt= tr-.i5=;t obligations to American
ic-.-.- • -:ncluaii-.g Alaska Natives) it shall be the policy
f'- - "I- ': ■; -"tatr-i- '■•■ j-evy^gnize and act '^xDnsistent with
fv-,lu- -nr,- principles of law:
Tb° tiiost responsibility to American Indians is an
esl^bii^hnd legal ol)ligation which requires the United
5tAl^^ tij pnjtt=>-L aiid enhance Indian trust resources and
trilTdi self-governiTent. Tliis includes the duty to provide
ser"i es for trust protection and enhancement. In carrying
out li-it tmst responsibility, the United States shall be
held t;i the highes;. standards of care 'and good faith
consist •-at with the principles of cainon law trust. Legal
and equitable remedies shall be available in Federal courts
for l/i-cdr^. of such standards.
Althcnrrh the trust responsibility is a legally binding duty
requi>ed of aJl United States agencies and instrumentalities
and aVtliOugh Congicss lias the ultimate responsibility for
insuring tiiat Uie duty is net, there shall be in the Executive
Braiich csie independent prime agent which is charged with the
r ■■i-.u^l Lciipcritoibility for faithfully administering the trust.
The t..ni.<3t responsibility extends through the tribe to the Indian
meirht-- '*ether on or off the reservation. His or her rights
pursuant to this tJnited States doligation are not affected by
servi::es v^iich he/she may receive on the same basis as other
LiiiteJ Etates citizens or v*iich the tribe may receive on the
s»nft basis as any other governmental unit.
.^ic ;>i;iijc;c; Sta':js hold legal title to Indian trust property
i-nt fiijj "Equitable title rests with the Indian owners.
593
AMERICAN .WDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT
Chapter 4: Federal-Indian Trust Relations
Recommendations :
Action to be taken by
"Indian Trust Rights Iitpact Statement. Before any agency takes
action which may abrogate or in any way infringe any Indian
treaty rights, or non- treaty rights v^ich are protected by the
trust responsibility, it shall prepare and submit to the appro-
priate coimittees in both houses of Congress an Indian Trust Rights
Inpact Statemsnt. Such Inpact Statement shall include but not be
limited to the follcwing information:
1. Nature ol 'jhe proposed action.
2. Nature of the Indian rights which may be abrogated or in any way
infringed by the proposed action.
3. Whether consent of the affected Indians has been sought and
ctotained. If such consent has not been obtained, then an explan-
ation of the extraordinary circumstances where a ccnpelling
national interest requires the taking of such action without
Indian consent.
4. If the proposed action involves taking or otherwise infringing
Indian trust lands, whether or not lieu lands have been offered
to the affected Indian or Indians.
' The United States shall not abrogate or in any way infringe any
treaty ri^ts, or non-treaty rights which are protected by the
tnist responsibility, without first seeking to obtain the consent
of the affected Indian or Indians. Such ric^ts shall not be
abrogated or infringed without such consent except under extra-
ordinary circumstances where a ccnpelling national interest reqxiires
otherwise. With or without Indian consent, such rights shall not
be abrogated or infringed in any way except pxirsuant to a Congress-
ional act which identifies the specific affected Indian rights
and v*iich states that it is the intent of Congress to abrogate
or infringe such rights.
594
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT
Chapter 4: Federal-Indian Trust Relations
Recommendations :
Action to be taken by:
'Legal Representaticn for Indians. In order to diminish the conflict
of interest prevalent vrtien the Department of Justice and the Depart-
nent of the Interior provide legal services to Indians, to provide
for more efficient rendering of legal services to Indians, and to
otherwise inprove the representation which Indians receive for pro-
tection and enforcement of their trust rights. Congress shoiiLd enact
legislation vMch will provide for the following:
1. There shall be established within a newly-created Departanent of
Indian Affairs (See Chapter 6) an Office of Trust Rights Protec-
tion. Its duties shall include, but not be limited to, inventory-
ing and assisting in the management of Indian trust property,
advising Indians and Indian tribes in legal matters and represen-
ting them in all litigation and administrative proceedings invol-
ving Indian trust rights. In appropriate field offices of the
Department of Indian Affairs there shall be a legal and profes-
sional staff under the supervision of the Office of Trust Rights
Protection .
2. The Office of Trust Rights Protection shall be authorized to ren-
der all appropriate legal services which are new rendered by the
Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior, provided
that the client-Indian agrees to accept such representation and
services .
3. The Office of Trust Ri^ts Protection shall have the prinary res-
ponsibility of the Federal government for protecting, enforcing,
and enhancing Indian trust rights but this shall not relieve any
Federal agency from the duty to recognize and act consistent with
the Federal trvist responsibility for Indians.
4. The Office of Trust Rights Protection shall act in the nane of the
United States as trustee for the Indians in all legal matters and
prtx;eedings, except those vAiich it refers to the Departnent of
Justice for litigation. It shall have the discretion to so refer
those natters v^ich it does not have the staff, resources, or
expertise to handle. The Office also shall have the discretion
and authority to engage private counsel to represent Indians,
tribes or groips in trust matters. In such cases, the United
595
AMERICAN
Chapter
Recommendations
NDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL RJ=:PORT
Federal-Indian Trust Relations
Action to be taken by
Government may pay all fees and costs and the wishes of the
client- Indians shall be coiplied with as much as possible in
selection of counsel. Where there is a conflict of interest
between an individual Indian and a tribe involving trust issues,
the Office shall represent the tribe and it shall have the dis-
cretion to engage private counsel to represent the individual at
government expense.
5. The United States waives sovereign imtiunity for all actions
involving Indian trust matters brought by the Office of Trust
Rights Protection or private counsel engaged by it to represent
Indians.
6. The Office is authorized to obtain whatever information, services
and other assistance deemed necessary fran other Federal agencies
and such agencies shall be obligated to ccnply with such requests.
"Authorization for Award of Attorney Fees and Other Litigation Costs.
Federal courts are authorized to award attorney's fees and ej^jenses,
and all reasonable costs incident to litigation, including but not
limited to expert witness fees, in cases in which an Indian or Indian
tribe or groip engages private attorneys and is successful in pro-
tecting or enforcing treaty, trust or other ri^ts protected by Federal
statute. Federal courts shall have the discretion to order that all
such fees and costs be paid by the losing party or by the United
States Govemirent.
596
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT
Chapter 5: Tribal Govemirent - A. Legal Status fienerally
Recommendations :
A. 1. Historical Overview and Jurisdiction Generally
"Ihat the long term objective of Federal- Indian policy should be the
development of tribal governments into fully operational governments
exercising the same powers and shouldering the same responsibilities
as otter local governments. This c±>jective should be pursued in a
flexible manner vrtiich will respect and acoitmcDdate the unique cultural
and social attributes of the individual Indian tribes.
°It is the reorairendation of this Canmission that the Congress under-
take no legislative action in relation to tribal jurisdiction over
non- Indians at this tine.
A. 3. Political Relationship and the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934
"That Section 18 of the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 478) vfaLch
provides that no part of that Act shall apply to any reservaticsi
v^ierein a majority of the adult Indians vote against its application
should be repealed. In its place Congress should enact a savings
clause to provide that the rights of any tribe which has organized
under the terms of Section 16 of the Act or formed a corporation under
Section 17 of the Act will not be adversely affected. To acooitplish
. this result the Conmission reconmends the follcwing specific legisla-
tive actions:
1. Repeal Section 18 of the IRA which reads as follows:
This Act shall not apply to any reservation vAierein a majority
of the adult Indians, voting at a special election duly called
by the Secretary of the Interior, shall vote against its appli-
cation. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior
within one year after June 18, 1934, to call such an election,
which election shall be held by secret ballot upon thirty days'
notice .
2. Insert in place of this Section the following language:
Any Indian tribe vrfiidi has chosen to organize under Sections 16
and 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act shall not be affected.
Action to be taken h
597
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT
Chapter 5: Tribal Govemnient
Recommendations :
A. Legal Status Generall
Action to be taken by
"That Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 476)
v*iich authorizes tribes to organize under the provisions of that Act
should be aitended to: (1) to specifically reflect the fact that tribes
have an inherent right to form their own political organizations in
the form which they desire, and (2) to provide that notwithstanding
any provisions in existing tribal constitutions v*ich vest the Secre-
tary with authority to review and disapprove ordinances enacted by
the tribal qn^'^mment, the authority of the Secretary over the actions
of the tribal government shall only extend to those iratters directly
related to the trust responsibility over the use and disposition of
trust assets. To accorplish this result the Commission reoomiends
amendment of Section 16 of the IRA along the following lines:
The right to choose their natural form of government is the inherent
right of any Indian tribe. Amendments to tribal constitutions and
by-laws adcpted pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act shall be
ratified and approved by the Secretary to protect the trust assets
and resources of the tribes.
In addition to all powers vested in any Indian tribe or tribal
council by existing law, said Indian tribe shall also be recognized
to have the following rights and pavers: To eitploy legal counsel,
to prevent the sale, disposition, lease, or encumbrance of tribal
lands, interest in lands, or other tribal assets without the consent
of the Secretary; and negotiate with the Federal, state and local
governments. The Secretary of the Interior shall advise all Indian
tribes and/or their tribal councils of all apprcpriation estimates
of Federal projects for the benefit of the tribe prior to the sub-
mission of such estimates to the Office of Management and Budget
and the Congress.
Notwithstanding the provisions of any existing tribal constitution
or similar document vrtiich vest authority in the Secretary to review
and approve or disapprove proposed actions of said Indian tribes, or
Indian tribal governments, the Secretary's authority over Indian
tribes can only extend or be directly related to the trust respon-
sibility over the use and disposition of trust assets.
598
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT
Chapter 5: Tribal Govemnent - A.
Recommendations :
Legal Status Generally
Action to be taken by
°That Section 2 of Title 25, U.S. Code, should be anended to provide
that the authority of the Secretary of the Interior over tribes shall
only extend to actions relating to protection of tribal trust assets.
Within these limits, whenever the Secretary finds it necessary to
disapprove a proposed tribal initiative, he must file a written state-
ment with the tribe notifying them of the reason for his disapproval
of their proposed action and afford them an opportunity for a hearing.
"That Section 81 of Title 25, U.S. Code, should be amended to accorplish
a result similar to that proposed above, i.e., that vrfienever the SecrS'
tary shall disapprove any proposed contract dealing with tmst assets,
he shall provide the affected tribe or person with a written statement
of his reasons for disapproval and provide them with an opportunity
for a hearing. To acccnplish these results the Conmission reoamends
amendatory language along the following lines:
That 25 U.S.C. 2 be amended to include the follcwing language: "The
authority of the Secretary of the Interior over Indian tribes shall
only extend to those actions deemed necessary to protect tribal tirust
assets and resources. In any action which the Secretary finds it
necessary to disapprove a proposed tribal government initiative,
the Secretary shall take such action within 60 days of having been
officially notified of the proposed tribal action by the Indian
tribaJ. government and any disapproval of the proposed tribal action
shall be acccnpanied by an opportimity for a hearing on the part of
the tribe, and the Secretary's decision shall be based on written
findings of fact v^ich shall specify the reasons for his disapproval.
Ttiat 25 U.S.C. 81 be amended in the following manner: The third
paragraph beginning "second... " shall read: It shall bear the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior and Oonroissioner of Indian
Affairs endorsed ijpon it. The Secretary of the Interior and the
Comnissioner of Indian Affairs shall disapprove any such proposed
contract only after finding that the proposed ccntract shall endan-
ger the trust assets or resources of the tribe or individual Indian.
Such findings shall be suhmitted to the proposed t:ribe and/or Indian
in written form specifying the exact reason for disapproval.
599
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL RKPORT
Chapter 5 : Tribal Govemrnent - A. Leyal Status General :
Recommendations :
Action to be taken b^.
"Additional legislation should be enacted to authorize tribes to over-
ride Secretarial disapproval of their proposed use of trust assets.
Such an override must be coupled with a waiver of liability on the
part of the United States to the limited extent tliat the o^^erride may
result in loss. The Cormission recoini.ends enactn-ci-.t of legislation
along the follo.ving lines to ooitplement the preceding reooiriTiendation .
Whenever the Secretary disapproves a tribal government initiative, a
oontract or otlier tribal action involving the use or disposition of
a trust asset, the tribe shall be entitled to override such Secretarial
disapproval upon the follcwing terms:
The Secretary shall simply the tribe with a detailed statement of the
reasons for his disapproval of their proposed use or disposition of
the trust asset, specifically setting forth the loss he believes may
result frctn such tribal proposal.
After due oonsultation between the representatives of the tribe and
the Secretary or his representative, the tribal council may, by
formal resolution, elect to override the dis^proval of the Secre-
tary. Such resolution must contain a specific waiver of liabililty
on the part of the United States for losses which may result as a
direct result of the tribal override.
In the consultation process the Secretary shall be held to the high-
est standards of care and good faith consistent with the principles
of oomron law trust in advising the tribes of the potential conse-
quences of the proposed tribal decision.
A tribal override of a Secretarial disapproval shall not diminish
the trtist character of the asset in question. The trust respon-
sibility of the United States to aid the tribe in the inplementation
of their decision ani to protect the future well-being of the asset
shall continue undiminished.
In any case in vrfiich the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe
that the decision of the tribal government may not reflect the will
of the majority of the mearbers of a tribe he shall (may) require a
referendum of the tribal meitters, the expense of which shall be
borne by the United States and not the tribe.
In the event the Secretary determines that a tribal resolution
should be put to a referendum, he must notify the tribal council
within 30 days of the passage of their resolution, and he must call
for such referendum vote not more than 45 days after tendering
such notification.
600
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT
Chapter 5: Tribal Government - A. Legal Status Generally
Recommendations ;
Action to be taken by
A. 4. 1968 Civil Ri^ts Act/Faith and Credit Afforded Tribal Laws
"The Contdssion recanmends the following amendments to Title II of the
1968 Civil Ri^ts Act:
1. Congress should enact provisions to make it crystal clear that this
Act was not intended as a general waiver of sovereign iitinunity of
the tribes. The holding in Loncassion v. Lee3d.ty , 334 F. Supp.
370 (D., N.M. , 1971) authorizing a money judgment against tribes
should be specifically rejected by Congress. While the courts
must have authority to enforce s\±>stantive aspects of the Act (as
limited by the recormendation above) , Indian tribes , like any other
government, must have sovereign iiinunity and some protection for
their officers if they are to be able to govern fairly. Equitable
actions such as mandamus against tribal officials may be permis-
sible, but they should be irmiune from money judgments vihen they
work within their soope of duty.
2. The jurisdictional provisions of this Act should be reexamined.
Habeas corpus review is the only jurisdictional provision new in-
cluded in this Act, yet the courts have assumed jurisdiction over
a broad range of actions vrtiich do not involve detention. As the
situation stands, the jurisdictional reach of Federal courts and
the remedial orders v*iich they feel free to enter is virtually un-
limited. This is in oomplete contrast to all other Federal civil
ri^ts legislation.
3. The part of this Act providing for a right to trial by jury be
amended to specify that the right guaranteed by this subsection
shall only be applicable to offenses which if charged in a Federal
court would be subject to a ri^t to trial by jury. As Section
202(10) presently reads, the right to trial by jury would theoret-
ically apply to alrtost every offense a person might be charged
with, not matter how slight the penalty.
4. The provisions of the Act limiting the penal authority of a tribe
to fines of $500 or six months inprisonment, or both, should be
amended to increase these figures to fines of $1,000 or 1 year
inprisonment, or both.
601
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COHMISSION FINAT, REPORT
Chapter 5: Tribal Govemitent - A. Ltjal Status General 1/
Recommendations: Actio;, to be taken b'.
5.
That Section 1738 of Title 28, U.S. Code, should be amended to
include Indian tribes among those govemnients to whom full faith
and credit shall be given. Tlie prvpose of this amendment would be
to place Indian tribes on the same footing ac states and terxitories
with resp 
TVNews
OpenLibrary